explain_issue

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that title/category are localized, advice currently in Russian (advice_lang field), and behavior for unknown id (found=false). This is adequate behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, input source, behavior details.

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 output schema present (context signal), description doesn't need return values. It covers input, localization, error case. Complete for a simple explanation tool.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds that check_id comes from audit_site/list_checks and gives example 'hsts', but lang parameter is already well-specified in schema. Minor added value.

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?

Description clearly states it explains one check (why important and how to fix), specifies input source (check_id from audit_site/list_checks), and distinguishes from siblings like list_checks which lists checks.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (after audit_site or list_checks) and what check_id to provide. Does not mention alternatives but purpose is narrow enough that no further guidance is needed.

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