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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the 'newest first' ordering hint, which is already in the limit param description. No mention of pagination, result size, or visibility filtering beyond 'public'.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and the reason. Efficient, though borderline terse for a mutation-adjacent discovery tool.

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 read tool with annotations, the bar is modest, but the description omits any result-shape or pagination guidance and doesn't name request_feature as the paired write tool, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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 both params are fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond 'newest' ordering, which duplicates the schema's 'newest first' wording.

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 (list) and resource (feature requests), with scope 'public' and 'newest'. Distinguishes from sibling write tool request_feature implicitly, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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?

Implies usage timing ('before proposing duplicate work'), but does not explicitly name request_feature as the alternative or state when not to use it. Context is implied rather than spelled out.

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