get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the complete text with section headings preserved, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens when both parameters are provided, when neither is provided, or the 'nearest issue' behavior that is only in the parameter description. The description adds some behavioral context but not a comprehensive picture.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence contributes: the first states the purpose and parameters, the second describes the return value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters, and the output schema is absent, so the description helps by indicating the return format. However, it lacks important contextual details such as the requirement to provide at least one identifier and the conflict resolution if both are given. The description is adequate but has gaps.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description merely reiterates that the tool works by 'issue number or publication date', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify that at least one parameter is needed, since none are required.

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: 'Retrieve the full content of a specific Microsoft AI Roundup issue.' It specifies the resource ('Microsoft AI Roundup issue') and the action ('retrieve') along with the two lookup methods (issue number or publication date). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search or list by focusing on full content of a single issue.

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 for use: when you want a specific issue identified by number or date. It implies that you should have one of these identifiers. It does not mention alternatives like list_issues for finding issue numbers, but the context is clear enough without exclusions.

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