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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behavioral facts: the role default shifts based on presence of a key, only open questions return by default, and state='all' adds answered, withdrawn, and expired ones. It also warns that ask_issue_question does not wait, so this tool is the polling mechanism; only the exact return shape is left implicit.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scopes in the first, polling use-case and caveat in the second, parameter defaults in the third, and state filtering in the fourth. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 moderately complex list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, role semantics, state behavior, and the polling relationship with ask_issue_question. It leaves 'from' and 'limit' semantics to the schema, and the exact return shape is only implied by 'questions with answer options' rather than stated, which is a modest gap.

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 description reinforces the key/role default interaction and state='all' behavior, but it does not add semantically new information beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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?

The description states a precise verb and resource — listing issue questions with their answer options — and distinguishes the three meaningful scopes via role values ('to_me', 'asked', and everything on one issue). It clearly separates this read/poll operation from sibling tools like ask_issue_question and answer_issue_question.

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 description explicitly frames this as the way to poll: 'This is how you find out whether the question you asked has been answered — poll it, since ask_issue_question does not wait.' It also explains how defaults change with and without a key, giving the agent clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly contrast it with answer_issue_question or withdraw_issue_question, but the read-versus-write distinction is clear from context.

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