Get Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it lists the exact fields returned, explicitly states what is NOT in the response (comments, links, etc.), and highlights the `version` field for optimistic locking. It doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., performance) but given the annotation, this is sufficient.

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 longer than average, but every sentence adds value: it lists fields, defines usage scenarios, gives an alternative, and explicitly lists exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and stays relevant throughout. Slightly verbose but justified.

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?

Given the high complexity (many fields, many sibling tools), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what parameters are needed, what the response includes/excludes, and when to use it versus alternatives. The output schema exists, so return details are structured, and the description complements it perfectly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (issue_id and include_description). The description mentions the key format ('QUEUE-123') but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a Yandex Tracker issue by its id' and lists the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to `issues_find` for search and enumerating what is not included (comments, links, etc.), making it unambiguous which tool to use.

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 guidance on when to use the tool ('open, view, inspect or check the details... of a single issue you can already name'), when not to use it (search use `issues_find`), and even a specific use case (read a fresh `version` before `issue_update` for optimistic locking). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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