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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: search is semantic across multiple fields, returns short entries with excerpt and score, and pagination reuses the last item's cursor with the same query and filters. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but adds solid context beyond annotations.

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 two dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and then cover usage, return format, and pagination. Every clause contributes useful information without fat.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing return context: short entries, excerpt, score, and pagination via cursor. It omits minor details such as default limit behavior or score interpretation, but is otherwise complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters clearly. The description reinforces pagination behavior around cursor and filters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: it searches a product's features by meaning across title, gist, and spec. It also implies differentiation from a plain list by describing semantic matching, word forms, aliases, and typo tolerance. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete usage context: when the user asks to find a feature or determine where new work belongs. This is clear guidance, but it offers no when-not-to-use conditions or explicit alternatives such as feature_list or task_search.

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