get_non_delivery_by_issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so agents know it is a safe read. However, the description discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination via cursor_next, response format, or that it reports non-delivery events for a specific issue. It adds nothing beyond the annotations and endpoint.

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 extremely short, but brevity is not effective here. It consists of a bare endpoint and a vague parity note; there is no structured breakdown or front-loaded key information. Every word could have been used to explain the tool's purpose, but it doesn't.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and only safety annotations, the tool needs a substantive description to be usable. The description provides no context about return values, pagination, or the meaning of 'non-delivery'. It is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 only 25% (only dry_run is described, in Russian), and the description provides no explanation for any parameter. It does not mention that 'issuen' is required, what 'limit' controls, or how 'cursor_next' relates to pagination. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it completely fails to do so.

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 provides only an endpoint ('GET /api/v2/issue/report/non-delivery') and a note about Python SDK parity, but never explains what the tool does in functional terms. The name 'get_non_delivery_by_issue' is suggestive, but the description adds no semantic clarification and does not differentiate from siblings like get_non_delivery_by_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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as get_non_delivery_by_date or get_fbl_report_by_issue. The 'Python SDK parity' hint is not practical usage guidance.

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