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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that, such as ordering or pagination, but the read-only/idempotent profile reduces the burden on the description.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence stating the action, scope, and optional filters. There is no filler, and it does not redundantly repeat schema details.

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 simple read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete. It lacks explicit return-shape or pagination details, but the low complexity makes those omissions non-critical.

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%, with each parameter already documented including enums, bounds, and a default for limit. The description only restates the high-level status and severity filters, so it does not add meaningful semantic value 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?

The description identifies the resource (issues), the scope (a website), and the optional filters (status and severity). It is clear and unambiguous relative to sibling tools like list_sites and list_tasks, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 implies this tool is used when an agent needs the issues belonging to a site and wants to optionally narrow by status or severity. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, so usage context is only implicit.

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