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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the tool returns only open issues, not solutions; it supports duplicate checking; it requires PII/secrets stripping; and it may produce results already present in a search_solutions response. This is strong context for a read-only search tool.

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 compact and logically structured with labeled sections: use case, return value, exclusions, and safety. Each sentence earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded before the safety note.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description conveys the essential return shape (open issues with repro context, no solutions), the sibling-distinguishing context, browse vs. query behavior, and the required query sanitization. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a safety instruction that overlaps with the query parameter description, and it repeats the schema's 'omit to browse' note without introducing new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden successfully.

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?

States a precise verb+resource pair ('search' + 'open issues'), defines what it returns ('matching open issues with repro context'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_solutions by noting it has 'no solution content yet'. It also explains the two modes (browse vs. query), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, naming the exact sibling tool (search_solutions) and the condition under which it should be avoided. It also clarifies when to omit the query, giving concrete decision rules for an agent.

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