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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the read query shape and endpoint but says nothing about authentication/token needs, rate limits, pagination, ordering, or what a result contains — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the identifying scope and followed by the API mapping. Nothing is padded, though the raw endpoint string is only marginally useful to an agent selecting a 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what is returned (issue fields, ordering, pagination) and any auth expectations. It is adequate to identify the tool but not to predict its behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The phrase 'over a relative window' loosely mirrors statsPeriod, but the description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already documents for all four parameters.

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?

Specifies a concrete verb+resource ('unresolved Sentry issues') with a scoping constraint ('relative window') and maps itself to the underlying API endpoint. It also signals it is a primitive ('Low-level building block'), which hints at its place relative to the richer sibling tools, though it never names them.

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 'low-level building block' framing implies it should be composed into or preferred only when higher-level tools (incident_snapshot, whats_broken_since_last_deploy) don't fit, but it never states when to use this versus those siblings or any exclusions.

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