Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavior context: no auth required, include_stories defaults to false, and the stories are inlined as stories[] with id/title/dek. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool returns first, then gives shape and behavior details. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant repetition of the title or name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even without an output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return value by referencing the list_issues element shape and the optional stories fields. It covers auth requirements, the single parameter's behavior, and the relationship to sibling tools, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains exactly what include_stories does, its default value, and the resulting shape of the response. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'returns the most-recent issue summary' and clarifies the exact shape ('same shape as one element of ic_signal_list_issues.issues[]'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'latest' and referencing the related tools it complements.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is a 'convenience tool' for the latest issue summary, and it explains how include_stories can save a follow-up ic_signal_get_issue call. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus list or search, but the intended usage is strongly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.