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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields and flags that attachment URLs are short-lived signed URLs, which an agent must know to consume them promptly.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the format/return details following. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries return-value disclosure and does so adequately (title, description, status, linked entities, artifact references, signed URLs). Auth requirements are handled by the schema parameter descriptions, so nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 67% and issueId has no schema description, but the description compensates by listing five accepted id formats, which is critical for invocation. botId/projectApiKey semantics come from the schema, so the description adds meaning where it matters most.

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 (Fetch) and resource (TestChimp issue/bug) scoped by ordinal id, so it is clearly the read counterpart to create-issue/update-issue-status. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb and scope make the role unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it retrieves a single issue's details by id, and the accepted id formats are spelled out. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g. versus update-issue-status), so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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