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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them with useful behavior: only the caller's own reports are visible, results are newest-first when listing, and it is free ('checking never costs a credit'). No rate-limit or pagination detail, hence 4.

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-loads the core purpose and keeps the operational guidance tight. The sentence about the resolution e-mail and 'the honest answer ... was a guess' is motivational framing that adds value but is slightly verbose and could be trimmed without losing guidance.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers cost, read-only nature, visibility scoping, and both parameter modes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of issue_id — and it does, explaining the filter-vs-list duality and the omitted-parameter default ordering. It does not restate the integer type, but that is visible in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Checks what happened to a problem the user reported with report_issue') and it explicitly enumerates the returned facts: open/resolved, reported date, and resolution once closed. It also names its sibling/pairing tool (report_issue) so an agent can distinguish the read-side from the write-side.

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?

States the two usage modes clearly: pass issue_id for a single report, omit it to list the user's own recent reports newest first. It also scopes visibility ('Only the user's own reports are visible') and contrasts with the prior resolution-email-only workflow. No explicit 'do not use when' guidance, but the decision conditions are unambiguous.

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