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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'No changes.' is partly redundant. What the description adds beyond structured data is substantive: the returned report text is flagged as untrusted data, an important prompt-injection safety signal an agent would not otherwise see. Missing are notes on result volume or pagination, which output schema coverage partly offsets.

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 compact clauses with the audience/scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. The trailing fragment 'No changes.' is slightly redundant against readOnlyHint, but it is short enough that it does not dilute the message.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essential pieces: who may call it, what it returns, and the trust level of the returned text. Return-value explanation is correctly omitted since an output schema exists; only the relationship to adjacent issue tools is left implicit.

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%, with both 'id' and 'owner_key' documented including the fact that the owner key is verified and omitted from the response. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline score applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('list the issues agents reported') scoped to a listing owner, which distinguishes it from siblings such as koskamo_get_mcp_issue_status or koskamo_report_mcp_issue. It is clear what the tool returns (issue report text) without needing to open the schema, though it never names an alternative tool 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?

The opening clause 'For the owner of a listing' establishes a precondition (caller must hold the owner key), which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over koskamo_get_mcp_issue_status or koskamo_list_operations, so routing must be inferred from the tool name.

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