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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the handle is a secret, and the owner response is untrusted third-party text — a prompt-injection warning the agent could not get from the schema or annotations. It stops short of saying what an invalid or expired handle yields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then a short security caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the untrusted-text warning is placed where it will be read before the response is consumed.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what an agent needs: the credential it must hold, the fields it will see, and the trust level of one of those fields. Missing only error/expiry behavior and any hint about the live-check semantics.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as the secret receipt handle returned at report time. The description reinforces the secret/possession semantics but adds no format, length, or validity detail beyond the schema's maxLength of 128.

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 ("Read the state of a reported MCP server issue") and enumerates the payload: status, report count, owner response, live check. That clearly separates it from write-side siblings like koskamo_report_mcp_issue, koskamo_reopen_mcp_issue, and koskamo_handle_mcp_issues, though none of those siblings is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase "by its secret receipt handle" tells the agent this is the follow-up read after a report, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no named alternative (e.g. reopening versus re-checking). An agent can infer the flow, but must do the inferring.

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