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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is partially adequate but lacks full transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and output. It is efficient and front-loads the key information without extraneous detail.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions stack trace and breakdowns but does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON structure). It also lacks usage context such as prerequisite steps (e.g., obtaining a fingerprint from get_error_issues). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 does not add additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It summarizes the output but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'gets', the resource 'detailed information about a single JavaScript error issue', and the key method 'by its fingerprint'. It also lists the specific details returned (stack trace, breakdowns, samples), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_error_issues' and 'get_error_vendors'.

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 that a fingerprint is needed (obtained from get_error_issues) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of when to use or when not to use is only implied, not clearly articulated.

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