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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that dismissed/resolved issues are included (not just open ones) and by spelling out the authorization tier required. It omits volume/pagination behavior, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the status scope and the access caveat. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, status breadth, and authorization. The only real gap is the identifier format and result size, both of which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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?

With a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and only says 'the specified Suped organization' — it does not explain that organizationId is a 24-character hex ObjectId or how to obtain one. The meaning is inferable but not enriched beyond the schema.

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 ('Lists all saved email authentication issues') plus the scoping dimension (per organization) and the breadth of statuses covered. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (create_domain, get_dmarc_records, list_organizations), though it never names an alternative, so it stops short of the top band.

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 gives a real prerequisite ('requires regular organization access; billing-only membership is insufficient'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_dmarc_records or any other sibling, 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.