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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and not open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: list items carry their own how-to-fix steps while detail mode provides full fix steps, and calls are free/never consume lookups. This rate-limit and output-mode context goes beyond the annotations, though the description does not detail every return value, which is acceptable given an output schema exists.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence gives an overview, and the second paragraph gives precise mode-based instructions. Every sentence earns its place, including the cost/rate-limit note, with 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's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers both usage modes, all parameter roles, the source of project_id, filtering, pagination, and cost behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains project_id as a ranking id from list_projects, issue_key as the drill-down selector, severity as the list filter with its enum values, and page as the pagination control for detail results. This adds substantial meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving web audit issues for a project, with a clear two-mode behavior (severity-filtered list vs. drill into one issue's affected pages and fix steps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit_summary by specifying the exact output form and granularity.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: omit issue_key for the list, pass it for detail, use severity to filter, and use page for paginating detail results. It also anchors project_id to list_projects. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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