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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does state the auth scope (memory:read), that the operation is a read, that PRs are filtered out of results, and that binding failures mirror github_repo_get. It omits pagination/limit behavior, ordering, and whether results are capped, which matter for a list tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence relies on cross-referencing another tool's behavior, which is compact but assumes the agent knows github_repo_get's failure modes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, and auth plus error behavior are covered. However, for a list endpoint the description leaves open pagination/filtering semantics and alternative-tool routing, leaving gaps an agent would need to probe.

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%, including the state parameter's accepted values and default, so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds nothing beyond confirming the repo must be one "the org's GitHub App serves," which the schema also conveys — 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 and resource ("List issues") with a scoping qualifier ("in a connected repo") and an explicit content exclusion ("Pull requests are omitted"), which effectively separates it from github_pr_list. It stops short of naming github_issue_get as the single-item alternative, so the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 gives a prerequisite ("Requires memory:read") and an error pointer ("Same binding errors as github_repo_get"), which are context, not usage routing. It never says when to reach for this vs github_issue_get or github_pr_list, so the agent must infer the choice from the resource name alone.

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