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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the traits annotations cannot express: what the result set is composed of, that it returns no fixes/solutions/config, and that it returns nothing at all when no open issue matches. Empty-result and negative-output disclosure is exactly the context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then exclusions, then routing. Dense but every clause carries routing or scope information. It is a single heavy run-on block rather than cleanly separated sentences, which slightly reduces scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: unresolved forum threads plus open GitHub issues, with an explicit empty-result case. Together with the fully documented 2-param schema and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so 'description' and 'limit' are already fully documented in the schema, including the not-a-stack-trace guidance and the max-15 per-source cap. The description adds only the phrase 'free-text description', so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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+resource with explicit scope: 'surface known UNRESOLVED problems' and enumerates the exact corpus ('forum threads with zero replies but high views, plus open GitHub issues'). This is clearly distinguished from sibling search tools like search_github_issues and semantic_search.

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?

Explicit when/when-not routing: use it to answer 'is anyone else hitting this?', do NOT use it for 'how do I fix / configure / why does X happen', where it names the alternative path (semantic_search then get_doc). The schema reinforces with a pointer to diagnose_error for stack traces.

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