Show Coordination Issue In Recycle Bin

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning the API endpoint and return type ('Returns a JSON object'). There is no contradiction, but the description does not significantly expand on the annotations.

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 concise with four sentences: purpose, usage, return type, and API reference. Every sentence adds value, and the key information (what it does and required parameters) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description could explain return value structure more, but it states 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Coordination Issues.' Combined with annotations (read-only, idempotent) and API endpoint reference, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple read operation.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description repeats that id and project_id are required but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters well.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a single Coordination Issue item in Recycle Bin'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_coordination_issues_in_recycle_bin (list) and show_coordination_issue (non-recycle bin), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 states 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Coordination Issues by its identifier' and lists required parameters (id, project_id). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use alternatives, the context from sibling tools implies this is for single items in recycle bin, providing clear enough guidance.

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