list_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Append-only ledger' usefully hints at immutability and read-only access, but it never states that the call is non-mutating, whether results are paginated or sorted, or what ordering to expect from a ledger. The phrase 'payload SHA-256' is also unexplained — it is unclear whether hashes are returned per issue or whether they identify the ledger itself.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the front-loaded noun phrase delays the actionable point rather than leading with what the call returns.

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 the description need not enumerate returned fields, and the zero-parameter signature keeps the call surface small. However, for an enumeration tool in a family of nine related getters, the description leaves the agent without a clear sense of scope (all issues vs. a window) or ordering, which is the one thing it should supply.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-relevant detail because none is needed.

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 identifies the resource (a ledger of published issue dates) and implies a bulk read, but it is phrased as a noun-phrase data characterization rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. Nothing in it distinguishes this from siblings like get_latest_issue, get_catalog, or get_delayed_issue, which the agent must infer operates on the same corpus.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of get_latest_issue, get_catalog, or the other seven siblings. The agent must guess that 'list_issues' is the broad enumeration while 'get_latest_issue' is the narrow one, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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