get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately implies a read-only operation ('Retrieve'), and mentions return format ('complete text... with section headings preserved'). However, it does not disclose potential errors or restrictions (e.g., if issue not found), but for a simple retrieval this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first states the action and inputs, second details the output. No filler, front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to specify the issue, and what the response includes. No gaps remain.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (reiterates 'by issue number or publication date'), so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Retrieve) and resource (specific Entra.news issue) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues (which lists issues) and search_entra_news (which searches news). It specifies the two identification methods: by issue number or publication date.

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 clear context (use when you need full content of a specific issue) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It is implied that this tool is for a single issue, while siblings handle lists or search, but no direct comparison.

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