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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: the default exclusion of done/canceled, the priority-first ordering with None last and recent tiebreak, and the compact payload shape. Ordering and default filtering are exactly the traits an agent can't get from the 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and payload summary, then defaults, then filtering/order, then the remediation pointer — a sensible priority order. Slight redundancy in stating slaState twice (parenthetical and final sentence) is the only waste.

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?

With 7 optional params and no output schema, the description does the needed work: it sketches the returned fields, documents default scoping, ordering, and enum meanings for slaState. Only pagination behavior beyond the limit cap is left unaddressed, a minor gap.

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?

At 86% schema description coverage, the schema already documents limit, author, assignee, status, priority, and the slaState thresholds. The description mostly restates the filter list ('status (one or many), priority, label, author, or SLA state') without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 issues in the project') plus the scope of what is returned ('compact, each includes its author + createdAt + derived deadline slaState'). That payload summary cleanly separates it from get_issue/next_issue, which return single issues.

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 a concrete when-to-use case — 'poll slaState:"breaching" to find near-breach work for /loop remediation' — and states the default scope ('Defaults to active work (hides done/canceled)'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions versus sibling list/analytics tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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