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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: watchers/assignees may be notified, and report time defaults to now. It also states the tool does not delete/resolve, refining the destructive hint.

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-loaded with a 'WRITE:' marker and a clear verb+resource lead, then tight supporting sentences. The scope disclaimer sentence is slightly redundant but still earns its place as disambiguation.

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 9-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers required inputs, side effects (notifications), defaults, and the API endpoint. It leaves minor gaps (e.g., auth/permission requirements) but is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds value by naming the two required fields and cross-referencing fleetio_list_vehicles for asset_id and defaulting the report time, though the default is already noted in the schema.

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 ('create') and resource ('a new issue (a reported defect)') with its scope ('on a vehicle or equipment'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like fleetio_get_issue and fleetio_list_issues without opening any schema.

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?

Explains what the call needs ('the asset id ... and a summary') and clarifies scope ('Does not close, resolve or delete anything'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly route between alternatives or name exclusions beyond the scope disclaimer.

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