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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful operational context: default status filtering, oldest-first ordering, cursor pagination, and the required Cotlet API key with app access, which is not visible in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and defaults, and every sentence carries practical information. It loses a point for mild redundancy, since the field list (status, property, unit, assignee, dates) is essentially stated twice in the first two sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the returned fields and ordering. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage on all four parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though slightly richer return-shape detail would help.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by clarifying that status names come from the user's own database, that the default excludes Resolved, and that the cursor is the previous call's next_cursor, which goes beyond the raw schema text.

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 (list) and resource (service issues) and enumerates the returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from the create/update_service_issue siblings. An agent can identify it as the read/list counterpart without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the default behavior (every status except Resolved, so a plain call returns the open list) and how to paginate by passing next_cursor back as cursor. It gives clear context for invocation but does not name alternatives or exclusions, keeping it below a 5.

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