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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload field-by-field, which is the key behavioral fact for a fetch-one tool. It stops short of covering failure modes — whether a missing or inaccessible issueId errors versus returns empty — which matters for an agent handling a bad ID.

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 filler, with the returned-fields summary front-loaded before the routing hint. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description effectively substitutes for one by enumerating the returned fields, and it supplies the sibling routing cue. Everything an agent needs to select and call it is present.

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% and the single issueId parameter is already documented in-schema as 'The issue _id returned by list_issues.' The description reinforces singularity ("one issue") but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one issue in full") and itemizes exactly what comes back: description, steps to reproduce, expected vs actual behaviour, page URL, screenshot. The singular scope plus the explicit contrast with list_issues makes it unmistakable among siblings.

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?

"Use after list_issues to dig into a specific issue" names the alternative and the sequencing that selects this tool over the list variant. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if the issue ID is unknown), but the usage context is stated plainly rather than implied.

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