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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' is largely redundant. The description does add genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing pagination ('a page at a time') and that each issue carries note IDs, but it says nothing about ordering, total counts, or what an empty result means.

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, no filler, with the core action and the returned content front-loaded before the disclaimers. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 no output schema and no annotations beyond read-only flags, the description does the needed work: it lists issue categories, mentions note IDs, and explains paging. The remaining gap is that score_id's meaning (revision vs. version ID) is never resolved for the one required parameter.

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?

limit and offset are documented in the schema (67% coverage), and the description's 'a page at a time' reinforces pagination intent. However, score_id — the only required parameter — has no description anywhere, and the description's phrase 'the saved revision's' only hints that it identifies a revision rather than clarifying the expected ID format or versioning semantics.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('the saved revision's structural issues'), and it enumerates the issue categories (bar lengths, voices and chords, playback bindings) so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also carves out what it is not ('not a measure of transcription accuracy'), though it never names a sibling tool that would be the alternative for accuracy checks.

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 context is clear: use it on a saved revision to inspect structural/notation problems, and the explicit exclusion 'not a measure of transcription accuracy' steers the agent away from expecting transcription quality verdicts. It stops short of naming which sibling to call instead for accuracy or for reading notation content.

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