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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it does disclose the ordering guarantee, the visibility scope (own and shared folders) and the exact summary fields returned. It does not state that the operation is read-only or mention any auth/permission nuance, but the implied read behavior plus the enumerated return shape covers most of what an agent needs.

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: scope and ordering first, then the return shape, then the sibling pointer. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the ordering, scope and explicit field list of the return value, plus a pointer to the detail tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the default of 10 and the maximum of 50 are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline for a fully-described parameter.

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 the exact resource (issues), the qualifier that defines the set ('últimas modificadas'), the scope (own plus shared folders), and the ordering ('la más reciente primero'). It also names the sibling it is not (issues_get) for full reads, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to issues_get when a full issue rather than a summary is needed, which is a concrete when-to-use-this-instead rule. It does not address issues_list or issues_search, so discrimination against the other listing siblings is left implicit.

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