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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it declares the operation read-only and side-effect free ('nothing is sent or changed'), states the sort order (newest first), and names the returned fields. It does not mention result size limits or pagination, which is the only remaining gap for a list operation.

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?

Strong front-loading: purpose first, then use/do-not-use in caps-labelled blocks. Minor waste from the leading title restatement ('List Solved Issues') and the trailing HTTP '### Responses: **200**' boilerplate that adds nothing for an agent.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: ordering, returned fields, side-effect profile, and routing to siblings. There is no meaningful missing information.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description also correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted.

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?

Specific verb+resource plus a precise scope: 'Known problems the Iridium team has already fixed, newest first.' It is clearly separated from list_tools (capabilities) and report_issue (filing new bugs), so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives both a proactive trigger ('USE THIS before report_issue, to check whether the thing you just hit is already solved') and a reactive one ('when a user asks whether a problem they remember has been fixed'). It also names an explicit exclusion and the correct alternative ('DO NOT USE as general help or documentation... Call list_tools for that').

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