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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses filterable statuses, kind semantics (EXCEPTION for thrown errors and agent failures, LOG for log-derived issues), sort options, and the hasInvestigation flag. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a list tool this is a reasonable level of behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently enumerates filters and sort options. It also includes a cross-reference to get_issue. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the main capabilities, filter semantics, sort options, and return flag. It lacks an output schema, but mentions hasInvestigation and the next step (get_issue), which adequately completes the context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. Slightly more detail on result format would push it higher, but it's sufficient.

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 adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining kind values ('EXCEPTION for thrown errors and agent failures, LOG for issues derived from log lines') and clarifying the free-text query scope. This goes beyond mere parameter names, hence a 4.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List production issues for the caller's account.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue (single issue) and list_investigations. The filtering and sorting capabilities are also stated, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing issues for the caller's account) and hints at an alternative by saying 'call get_issue to read it' for the investigation brief. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose it over related list tools.

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