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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the row shape (a seven-day sparkline per issue) and explaining what it is for — distinguishing new from long-standing problems — which matters since there is no output schema.

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, no filler, with the scoping constraint and filter/sort axes front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers purpose, filters, sorts, and row content but omits pagination (cursor/limit) behavior and the q search parameter. An agent can call the basic case correctly but would be guessing at paging and text search.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate; it does partially, spelling out the status values (open/regressed/resolved/ignored/all), the four sort keys, and the app+environment scoping. It leaves the free-text q parameter, the limit cap, and the cursor pagination entirely undiscussed in either schema or description.

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 names the exact resource (error issues) and its mandatory scope (one application and environment), plus the filter and sort axes. It is clearly distinguishable from get_error or update_error_status by being a listing operation, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by "filtered by status ... and sorted by ...", which enumerates the supported query modes, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_error, list_incidents, or the analytics tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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