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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the returned data (full description, recommendation, affected pages, occurrences from latest report, comment thread), enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key parameters, and the second sentence provides a cross-reference to a sibling tool. All content earns its place.

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 tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably covers what the tool returns. It could mention the occurrence_limit parameter or error handling, but the current description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters (website_id, issue_number, occurrence_limit). The description only mentions website_id and issue_number, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The occurrence_limit parameter is not referenced, but its schema description is adequate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'issue', the identifying keys 'website_id + issue number', and lists the included fields (description, recommendation, affected pages, occurrence detail, comment thread). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'comment_on_issue' by directing the user to that tool for adding notes.

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 description explicitly tells the user to use 'comment_on_issue' for adding analysis or fix notes, providing a clear when-not scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'list_issues', though the purpose is implied.

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