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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: how matching works (word forms, AI aliases, typo tolerance), what is returned (short entries with excerpt and score), and how pagination behaves (reuse the last item's cursor with the same query and filters).

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load purpose and capability, with usage and return/pagination detail following. No filler, though the em-dash clause packs several distinct facts that could be split for scannability.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by summarizing the return shape (short entries with excerpt and score) and the pagination mechanism. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and page through 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds genuine semantic value by explaining that the cursor must be paired with the same query and filters, which clarifies the pagination contract beyond the raw schema field 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?

States a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('a product's features') and immediately specifies the matching strategy (by meaning in title, gist and spec) plus its capabilities (word forms, AI aliases, typo tolerance). This distinguishes it from sibling list-style tools such as feature_list or feature_context, which an agent can tell apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context ('when the user asks to find a feature or where new work belongs'), which tells the agent the intent this tool serves. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. feature_list) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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