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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: 'No auth required' and the 'Newest first' ordering guarantee, plus the shape of what comes back. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior.

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?

One dense paragraph with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The Args/Returns clauses read like a struct dump and partially duplicate the schema, but the Returns clause earns its place because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return field list, which is essential for an agent to use the result. Combined with the default limit and auth note, it is nearly complete; only pagination/edge behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes information the schema lacks: the default value of 10. It restates the max of 50, which is already in the schema, making the addition incremental rather than rich.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List issue summaries for THE SIGNAL') and scopes it ('Newest first'), which cleanly separates it from single-item siblings like ic_signal_get_issue and ic_signal_get_latest. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though ic_signal_get_latest, ic_signal_get_issue and ic_signal_search are obvious alternatives. Ordering and auth details describe the tool's behavior rather than when an agent should pick it.

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