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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: only public issues are returned, both opened and closed statuses exist, and private submitter IP fields are redacted — a useful data-disclosure note.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then appends the privacy caveat. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, pagination behavior (page/limit) and status value constraints are undocumented, leaving the mutation-free read tool adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 0% across four parameters. The description hints that status maps to opened/closed, but page, limit, and slug are left entirely to the schema with no format, type, or default guidance in either place, so the low-coverage gap is only partially filled.

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 (List) plus resource (issues) scoped to public opened-or-closed items of a Sportskeeda Wiki article. It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like sportskeeda_wiki_activity or sportskeeda_wiki_pages, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'for a discovered Sportskeeda Wiki article' implies the slug must come from a prior discovery step (e.g. sportskeeda_wiki_article), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is only implied.

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