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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds useful context beyond those: the data scope ('connected account'), the return shape ('array of issue records'), and supported filtering/pagination. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context, though it omits potential auth/rate-limit notes.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then capabilities, then usage guidance and sibling routing. Every sentence contributes value.

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 read-only list endpoint with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, filtering, pagination, and the alternative single-issue tool. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though it does not detail the fields inside each issue record or pagination response metadata.

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 60%, so the description has some responsibility to clarify parameters. It mentions updated_gte, sort, order, and pagination, but does not add much meaning beyond the schema's existing enum values and descriptions. It groups the parameters helpfully but does not explain how they interact or clarify the less-described `sort` and `order` semantics.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'List issues from the connected account' and 'Returns an array of issue records.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly saying to use `get_unified_issue` for fetching a single issue by ID.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to browse or search many issues' and names the alternative for single-issue retrieval. This gives an agent a clear decision rule without needing to infer.

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