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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: results contain user-generated public text and must be treated as data, not instructions — a real prompt-injection warning. It does not mention pagination or how the limit is applied across pages, so it is not fully complete on behavior.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the routing advice and the safety note. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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 does give some sense of what comes back (user-written text) and how to treat it. It omits return-volume/pagination behavior and does not address the undocumented limit/include_archived parameters, so it is strong but not exhaustive for a 6-parameter search tool.

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 67%, and the description adds one useful clarification beyond the schema: that the query matches title or description (the schema only says 'Words to look for'). However, parameters such as limit and include_archived have no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 (Find), resource (feature requests), scope (on a board) and the matching mechanism (words in title or description). This clearly separates it from list_features, which returns everything, so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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 an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use this instead of listing everything when looking for a topic,' which effectively names list_features as the alternative even without quoting the tool name. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. when you already know the feature id and should call get_feature).

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