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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only list operation, scopes results to the caller's organization, and discloses the composition of returned data (name, type, allowed values). It does not discuss pagination or empty-result behavior, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is sufficient.

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, information-dense sentence. Every clause earns its place: it names the resource, scopes to the caller's organization, enumerates returned fields, and connects to the consuming tools. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, the scope, and how the result is used. It stops short of specifying the exact response structure, but the described details are likely enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool.

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 baseline is 4. The description confirms no inputs are needed and instead focuses on what the response provides. This is appropriate and needs no additional parameter-level detail.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('the caller's organization's custom issue attributes'), and the exact contents returned (name, type, allowed values). It also ties the output to create_issue/edit_issue's attributes map, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_issues and 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 tells the agent when to use this tool: before calling create_issue or edit_issue to know what attribute keys/values are accepted. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection to create_issue/edit_issue is clear enough to guide selection.

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