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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is read-only, no pagination or ordering behavior, and crucially no indication of whether resolved issues are included. For a listing tool whose sibling is explicitly 'open issues', that omission is a significant behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the invocation constraint. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about what a returned issue looks like, whether the result set is filtered or paginated, and how mockId versus targetSlugId differ in scope. It covers target selection but leaves the return side undocumented.

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 would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by stating the two parameters are alternatives ('either ... or ...') — a mutual-exclusivity/one-of constraint the schema does not express, since required is empty and both are typed as independent properties.

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+resource ('List issues') and scopes it to a mock or rule target. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling list_open_issues_for_mock, leaving the agent unable to tell whether this returns all issues or only open ones without inspecting schemas.

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 only guidance is 'Provide either targetSlugId or mockId', which is an invocation constraint rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_open_issues_for_mock or get_issue, which is the real selection risk given the near-duplicate siblings.

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