fossa_get_issue_overview

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

With readOnlyHint=true already in annotations, the description reiterates 'Read-only' and adds meaningful behavioral context: that this endpoint returns aggregate daily counts (active, ignored, remediated) as a trend view, not individual issue details. This adds value beyond the annotations and does not conflict with them.

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 compact at three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and free of fluff. The standalone 'Read-only' sentence is slightly redundant with the annotation but does not significantly detract from conciseness.

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 description provides a clear purpose and differentiates from sibling tools, and the output schema covers return values. However, with 6 optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the agent lacks essential parameter semantics for constructing a correct request, especially for filters beyond the date range.

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 0% description coverage, and the description only vaguely references 'over a date range,' which partially covers start/end. However, other parameters (category, team_ids, label_ids, project_id) are not explained at all, and the category enum is not mentioned, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for filtering beyond the date range.

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 'Retrieve' with a clear resource: 'daily active, ignored, and remediated issue counts over a date range.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it is 'the trend view behind FOSSA's Issue Overview: how the backlog moved, not what is in it,' which separates it from issue listing tools.

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?

It communicates usage context by explicitly labeling itself as read-only and contrasting the trend view ('how the backlog moved') with a snapshot of issues ('not what is in it'), implying when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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