get_unsubscribe_by_issue

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context: it does not explain what data is returned, whether pagination is involved, or any quirks such as requiring valid issue numbers. The 'Python SDK parity' note is too vague to be actionable.

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, with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential information, so the brevity is a liability, not a feature.

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?

For a tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, usage context, or return value. The annotations and schema only offer minimal safety hints, leaving the agent without enough information to select and invoke the 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 description coverage is only 20%, and the description itself provides no parameter explanations. Each parameter (issuen, limit, order, dry_run, cursor_next) has no clarifying text except the Russian note on dry_run. The agent cannot infer that 'issuen' means the issue number or how pagination works.

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 is merely the API endpoint path 'GET /api/v2/issue/report/unsubscribe' plus a note about Python SDK parity. It does not explicitly state that this tool retrieves unsubscribe records for a given issue. The path loosely parses to 'unsubscribe by issue', but the tool's function is implied rather than defined, making it only slightly better than a tautology.

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 no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_unsubscribe_by_date, get_non_delivery_by_issue, and get_issue_stat exist for similar reporting needs, but the description provides no context for selecting among them.

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