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

Though annotations already mark this read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: owner/admin gating with `costUsd` null otherwise, members seeing only their own slice, `limit` being issues *scanned* rather than returned, the inline size cap truncating pages early, and the 'one read per call' billing model. These are traits an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations.

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?

Correctly front-loaded with the core purpose, but the first sentence is a run-on that enumerates roughly twenty field names inline. Since there is no output schema that enumeration does carry return-shape information, yet it bloats the opening and makes the key operational rules (paging, billing, scope) harder to scan.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema, permission-sensitive list tool, the description covers return fields, scope restrictions, pagination termination, truncation caveats, and billing. An agent could call and page this correctly without further information.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `by` determines which of three timestamps places an issue in the window, `limit` counts scanned rather than returned issues, and `cursor` must be replayed with identical other arguments. Only `tz`, `days`, and `person` are left to the schema alone.

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 specific resource (per-issue rows) and frames it precisely against the sibling: 'THE PER-ISSUE FACTS BEHIND THE ANALYTICS NUMBERS', distinct from the aggregate `analytics_overview` and from `list_issues`. The use case ('building its own dashboard or checking a figure') tells an agent exactly what output shape to expect.

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 clear context (dashboard-building, figure-verification) and explicit paging instructions ('Follow `page.cursor` ... until `page.done`'), plus the scope rules for project/allProjects/person. It does not explicitly say when to prefer `analytics_overview` or `list_issues` instead, so routing to alternatives is implied rather than stated.

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