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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: similarity is computed from fingerprint and title overlap, scores are 0-100, and at most 5 matches are returned.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action, ranking method, result limit, and use case are front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers ranking, score range, and result count. It does not describe the shape of each returned match, which is a minor gap because no output schema is provided.

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 100%, and the single bugId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that it accepts a 'given bug' and adds no syntax or format details beyond the UUID schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: find other bugs similar to a given bug. It adds ranking criteria, score range, and a result cap, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bug or list_bug_groups.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful: before merging or triaging. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls short of a perfect usage-guidance score.

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