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

With annotations already covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description adds substantial data-semantics context: occurrence_count is the true total, listed occurrences are a sample when occurrences_truncated is true, and full_detail reveals where every occurrence lives on a capped report. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior the agent needs for a read and is not derivable 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 identity ('Fetch one issue by website_id + issue number'), then the returned payload, then the truncation caveat, then the cross-tool cue. Two dense sentences with heavy parentheticals; every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical stacking makes it slightly harder to scan.

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, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values (full description, recommendation, affected pages, occurrence detail with snippets, comment thread). Combined with the truncation caveats and the comment_on_issue handoff, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so baseline is 3 and the schema already documents website_id, issue_number, and occurrence_limit. The description goes beyond by explaining the consequence of the occurrence limit (truncation and sampling flagged by occurrences_truncated, pointer to full_detail), which the schema only gestures at with 'see occurrence_count/truncated'.

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 ('Fetch one issue') and the exact key (website_id + issue number), distinguishing it cleanly from the browsing sibling list_issues. It also enumerates the payload an agent gets back (description, recommendation, affected pages, occurrences, comments), so the tool's scope is unambiguous without opening the 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?

Usage context is clear: this is the detail fetch for a single issue identified from list_issues. It also routes the agent to comment_on_issue for adding analysis or a fix note. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_issues or other siblings (e.g. get_report for report-level data), so the routing is implied rather than exhaustive.

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