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 only 'authenticated', which is minor behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, and does not disclose any additional side effects or behavioral traits.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the first sentence defining the tool's purpose and the second providing key usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the filtering functionality well but does not describe the return value or structure of the output, especially since no output schema is provided. While the annotation set is rich, the lack of output information leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The tool description adds significant value by explaining the smart lookup behavior of the `q` parameter, which is not fully captured in the schema description. This enhancement helps agents understand how to effectively use the filtering capability.

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 the tool lists open anomaly and delivery issues, specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes from other list tools by focusing on open issues specifically, providing a specific verb-resource combination.

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 offers guidance on using the `q` parameter for smart lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like `list_messages` or `list_sources`. The context of when to use vs. not use is implied but not clearly articulated.

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