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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and a title; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: typo/word-form tolerance, query-shape rejection rules, closed-task inclusion via allowClosed, and the pagination protocol (reuse last item's cursor with the same query and filters). It does not describe result shape or result limits beyond the schema's own limit doc.

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 with no filler; the core purpose and its key constraint are front-loaded before secondary filter and pagination details. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 with no output schema and full schema parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, query constraints, filtering, and pagination. It could say more about what a result contains, but that gap is minor given there is no output schema to defer to.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: allowClosed's inclusion semantics and the cursor contract requiring the same query and filters on the next page. It does not add syntax or format detail beyond that, so it stays below the top band.

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 tasks and bugs) and specifies the matching mode: semantic search over titles, gists, specs and results, tolerant to word forms and typos. The 'when the number is unknown' qualifier cleanly separates it from a hypothetical fetch-by-number operation, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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 explicit use conditions ('when the number is unknown') and an explicit exclusion ('task numbers such as #12345 are rejected as queries'), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling tool for the number-known case, so it misses the top band.

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