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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read behavior. The description adds that the tool returns an open/closed/agent summary, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination or response size limits.

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 12-word sentence, very concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, but could be slightly expanded to cover parameter or usage details without losing conciseness.

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 has 17 siblings and only 1 parameter, the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over similar list tools (e.g., list_annotation_issues). The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but more context on scope or filtering would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage. The description only vaguely refers to 'across a project' but does not explicitly explain the parameter's format, constraints, or purpose. Minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists all tracker issues across a project and includes an open/closed/agent summary. The verb 'list' and resource 'tracker issues' are specific, and the scope 'across a project' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_annotation_issues.

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 use when you need all issues for a project, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_annotation_issues, create_github_issue) or when not to use it. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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