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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond them — visibility/credential checks gate results and 'membership can change between reads', warning that result sets are not stable snapshots. That caveat is genuinely useful and not inferable 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then the read_problem hand-off, then pagination rules. The pagination/'ordinary recent-activity' sentence is slightly dense but every sentence carries operational value.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description implies a paginated list of problems plus a server cursor, and it flags that visibility/membership can change mid-pagination. That is nearly enough to call it correctly; only the exact returned envelope (items vs. cursor field names) is left implicit.

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 80%, so q, cursor and entity already carry their own documentation and the enum for outcome is explicit. The description only reinforces the cursor/limit continuation rule that the cursor schema field already states ('Retain the original normalized filters and limit'), and adds nothing about q, entity, or outcome semantics — 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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Discover distinct public problems'), plus the scope filter ('still accepting help') and result ordering ('recent admitted activity'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_problem and describe_problem, which fetch or explain a single problem rather than list candidates.

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?

It gives an explicit next-step rule: read the returned problem with read_problem before contributing, and it states the continuation contract (keep original filters, limit and server cursor). It does not cover when to prefer a different discovery path or when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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