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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: it needs no project context and it discloses the shape of the payload (rationale, bad/good examples, fix steps, tier, warnings), which is otherwise undocumented given there is no output schema.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and the usage trigger. No filler; every clause carries 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 single-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields substitutes well for a return-value section. Minor gap: it doesn't indicate whether fix steps cross-reference apply_fix/rollback_fix or that the response is static reference data.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself supplies the format example (meta_description_missing). The description only restates that the input is an issue code and adds the no-project scoping note, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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 (remediation profile for an issue code) and enumerates the returned content — why it matters, examples, fix steps, tier, warnings — so an agent knows exactly what it gets. The 'no project needed' clause distinguishes it from project-scoped siblings like get_issue, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use when you meet an unfamiliar code' gives a clear trigger condition for reaching for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_issue, get_playbook, get_fix_plan) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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