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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it states it returns one page and explains keyset paging ('pass next_cursor as start_cursor'). It omits default page size and rate/auth details, but this is solid added context.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then endpoint, then paging. No filler; dense but every sentence conveys something actionable.

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 17-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and pagination semantics, and hints at returned fields (state, priority, assignees, due date). Defaults and the full return shape are left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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%, so all 17 params are self-documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description surfaces the primary filter set (state, vehicle, equipment, reporter) but does not explain the date-range filters, sort_by/sort_direction interplay, or number, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List issues') with a helpful domain gloss ('defects and problems reported against vehicles and equipment'). It is distinguishable from fleetio_get_issue and fleetio_create_issue, but it never names those siblings to actively route the agent.

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?

Filter dimensions are listed ('Filter by state, vehicle, equipment or reporter'), which implies usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance or exclusions (e.g., use get_issue for a single issue).

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