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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation (creates an issue) and a key result (returns key), which is the primary behavior. However, it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies other data), permission requirements, or error behavior. It is adequate but not rich, and does not contradict any annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Creates a new issue') and essential output ('returns its key'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content, and the structure is clean and direct.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description's mention of returning the key is valuable. It also implies the need for prerequisite setup via the parameter descriptions (e.g., statusId must come from list_statuses), which are covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for a straightforward create operation, though it does not describe error handling or response formatting beyond the key.

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% – every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics; it only notes the output (key), which is not a parameter. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not go beyond it.

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 ('Creates'), a clear resource ('a new issue'), and the output ('returns its key'). It distinctly separates this tool from siblings like edit_issue, get_issue, and update_issue_status, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies use for creating new issues, and the presence of sibling tools (edit_issue, get_issue) provides context that this is the creation entry point. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'use edit_issue to modify existing issues') or list alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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