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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them: obsolete attachments are flagged rather than filtered out (so result counts include them), and hasFile distinguishes uploaded files from plain links.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (obsolete ones flagged, not hidden) is front-loaded before the field-level detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (hasFile, bytes, contentType) and the obsolete flag. Only the input identifier's format is left unexplained, which keeps it short of complete.

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 0%, so the schema documents nothing about the single required `issue` parameter. The description implies it is an issue identifier ("an issue's attachments") but never states whether it is a numeric ID, key, or slug — a notable gap for the only input.

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 verb and resource ("List an issue's attachments") and immediately disambiguates from get_attachment and get_attachment_file by framing this as the discovery step before fetching a file. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling fetch tools 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?

Gives clear usage context: call this first to see which attachments are readable and what pulling one will cost before calling get_attachment_file. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g., use get_attachment for a single known ID), but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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