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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it notes that only the last 200 active threads are considered, and that seed examples are excluded by default (with the include_seed parameter to override). No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.

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 sentences long and perfectly front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second defines the scope and limitations. No fluff or redundant detail exists; every word adds value.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the essential context: what it retrieves, how it matches, what it excludes, and when to use a different tool. There is no output schema, but the description already hints at the returns (source links, provenance, matching keywords). No vital information is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter comments for task, board, limit, since, and include_seed. The description enriches param understanding by explaining the matching mechanism ('Keyword overlap on title, tags and excerpt') and the default behavior for seeds, making the task parameter's semantics clearer. The enum on board and limits are self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find recent threads relevant to a task' with specific details about keyword matching over title, tags, and excerpt. It explicitly distinguishes itself from 'semantic search' and the 'full archive', naming 'search' as the alternative for broader queries. The verb 'find' and resource 'threads' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit context for when to use this tool: 'Before security-sensitive tooling or agent operations'. It clearly states when not to use it: 'not semantic search and not the full archive (use search for that)', naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. This provides a clear routing decision.

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