Get an issue document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the authorization class and endpoint, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error responses or return format. Minimal extra value.

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 very short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is too terse and lacks detail, leaving the agent with minimal information.

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 simplicity of a read-only get operation and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not differentiate from siblings or describe output, leaving room for improvement.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'id' or 'key' parameters beyond the endpoint path. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states 'Get an issue document' clearly indicating the tool retrieves a single document for an issue. The endpoint path and authorization class are included, but no explicit differentiation from siblings like pc_get_issues_by_id_documents (list all documents) or pc_put_issues_by_id_documents_by_key (update document).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the operation and path, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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