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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses result scope (own issues plus those in shared folders visible to the user), default ordering (most urgent to least), and the critical null-vs-omitted distinction for folderId. It omits pagination/result limits and any return-size behavior, which is the main remaining gap for a list endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then scope, then filtering, then use-case examples — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly run-on in a single block, but each clause carries operational information.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, it covers return fields, ordering, scope, and filter semantics. It leaves out pagination, maximum result counts, and permission failure behavior, which an agent would still need before relying on it for large result sets.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds intent-level meaning beyond the schema by pairing status filters with concrete user questions and restating that omission of folderId means all folders while null means the root. Priority filtering is mentioned only in passing with no similar guidance.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource (list issue summaries) and immediately enumerates the returned fields {id, title, status, priority, folderId, updatedAt}, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not name any sibling such as issues_get or issues_search to draw the list-vs-single-vs-search boundary explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios mapped to parameters ('¿qué hay pendiente?' → status ["open","in_progress"], '¿qué falta por probar?' → ["test"]) and explains the folderId branch clearly. It does not state when to prefer an alternative tool (e.g. text search or single fetch), so there are no explicit exclusions.

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