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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only Canton/Daml/Splice repos are in scope, but says nothing about auth needs, error behavior, or what the lookup returns.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope restriction second. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 tool with no output schema, the description never indicates what is returned (status only, or full issue/PR payload), despite the name implying 'status'. Annotations and schema cover input safety and parameters, but the return-shape ambiguity is a real gap.

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%, with both params documented (repo with shorthand form, number). The description only restates 'repo + number' and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 (look up) and resource (one GitHub issue or PR) with the lookup key (repo + number), which distinguishes it from the bulk sibling search_github_issues. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 scope constraint 'Canton/Daml/Splice repos only' implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointer to search_github_issues for broader lookups. Usage must be inferred from the constraint.

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