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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: deterministic ordering ('severity desc then most-recently-reported') and a result-set ceiling ('up to 50 per call'). It stops short of explaining behavior past that ceiling or whether a total count is returned.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then filters, then ordering and size. No filler and no repetition of schema enum values.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and mostly undescribed parameters, the description covers scope, filterability, ordering, and page size well enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is pagination beyond 50 results, which is unmentioned and not exposed by any schema parameter.

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 17%, so the description carries most of the explanatory burden. It does this partially: it names all six filters and clarifies that omitting projectId means cross-project, which the schema does not state. But status, severity, type, and ownerId are only listed by name with no added meaning, and combination semantics are unaddressed.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List Issues') and a scope qualifier ('visible to the caller'), so an agent immediately knows this is a scoped read of the issue collection. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as list_related_issues or get_issue, leaving that differentiation to the caller.

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 parenthetical 'projectId (optional - omit for cross-project)' gives a genuine when-to-use signal for one path. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_related_issues, list_org_risks, or get_issue, and no note on whether filters combine (AND vs OR).

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