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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context — result ordering and the awaiting-review scope — but does not disclose pagination or return-format behavior, so it lands at 'some value but not rich behavioral context.'

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 with zero filler; the core behavior and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the filtering guidance in the second earns its place. Every clause carries information.

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 simple read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema documents both optional parameters, this is nearly complete: scope, ordering, and filter usage are all present. The only gaps are that limit's behavior is left entirely to the schema and there is no output schema describing return values.

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 50%: stateCategory is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces it with the 'started' example. The limit parameter has no prose description in either the schema or the tool description, so the agent must infer its meaning from type/default/min/max alone.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a clearly scoped resource ('issues assigned to the caller or awaiting their review'), plus result ordering ('most recently updated first'). The personal scope distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues, get_issue, and list_issue_comments without needing to open their schemas.

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 intended use case is clear from the scope ('assigned to the caller or awaiting their review'), and the second sentence gives a concrete narrowing example ('state category such as "started"'). However, it doesn't name an alternative tool (e.g., search_issues for broader queries) or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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