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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool is a read-only listing operation and describes the return format (id, name, type, allowed values). However, it does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which could be relevant. The description adds value beyond the minimal information but is not exhaustive.

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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds valuable context about how the output is used. There is no filler or repetition.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description's explanation of the return fields and its relevance to issue creation is quite complete. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of ordering or any potential list size limits, but for a simple listing tool, this is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by clearly explaining the output structure and its relation to create_issue/edit_issue. This is excellent for a no-parameter tool, earning a 4 rather than the baseline 4 for zero params.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it lists custom issue attributes for the caller's organization, specifies the exact fields returned (id, name, type, allowed values), and directly connects it to the attributes parameter used by create_issue/edit_issue. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_issues or list_statuses.

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 implicitly explains when to use this tool: when you need to know the valid attributes for create_issue or edit_issue. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the connection to those sibling tools provides clear context. A score of 4 reflects the clear context without explicit exclusions.

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