Investigate an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the operation is expensive because it opens multiple topics, and it is positioned as a heavier sweep than find_answers. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solidly above baseline.

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 front-loaded with the full sweep's steps and closes with the disambiguation, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly long and lists behavior that partly overlaps the schema parameters, but there is no filler.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers intent, triggering context, cost, and the high-level shape of the result ('end with concrete next steps'). It does not describe the return structure at all, but the enumerated sweep steps give the agent a reasonable expectation of what comes back.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema (depth, scan_pages, within_days, tags, categories, issue). The description only indirectly alludes to 'opens several topics' for depth and adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and enumerates the actual operations of the sweep: find related topics, extract existing answers, separate open reports, fold in triage status, produce next steps. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling find_answers, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

It states the trigger condition precisely ('when someone reports a problem and you need to know whether the forum has seen it before...') and names the alternative with the selecting condition ('prefer find_answers for a plain question'), plus the cost tradeoff ('slower because it opens several topics'). This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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