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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that: it states the required auth scope (logs:read) and that the result includes the latest event plus stack trace, which is genuine behavioral context.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the payload description is front-loaded before the id-source and scope notes. Minor awkwardness in the verbless opening sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only single-record fetch with four documented params and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (event + stack trace), the id provenance, and the scope. It leaves out a little on response shape or whether history is included, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and each of branch, project_id, organization_id documents its own defaulting rules. The description's only parameter remark restates the schema's own wording for issue_id, adding no new format or range detail, so 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?

Names the specific resource (a single error issue) and the payload returned (latest event and stack trace), and ties issue_id to errors.list so the agent can distinguish it from the list sibling. The opening is a fragment without an explicit verb, but the title and name supply it.

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?

Pointing at errors.list as the source of issue_id implicitly routes the agent to the list tool first, and the 'Scope: logs:read' note signals the required permission. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over errors.list or log-oriented siblings like logs.get, so usage is only implied.

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