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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are sorted newest first, they default to open issues only, and the returned fields are listed. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the returned content, then states the default filter, then gives strategic usage advice. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the key output fields and the ordering. It doesn't describe response shape or pagination details, but the limit parameter and simple list semantics make the tool sufficiently transparent for an agent.

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 100%, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description mainly repeats the default-open behavior already present in the status parameter, so it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List issues' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates what the output contains: text, raiser, platforms, and check. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the phrase 'main thing to read before fixing anything' separates it from mutation tools like add_issue, edit_issue, and resolve_issue.

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 gives an explicit usage context: this is the primary tool to read before making fixes. It doesn't list alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, but the default-open filter and status enum in the schema provide enough practical guidance for selection.

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