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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: AND-combination of filters, default exclusion of done/cancelled items, and default sort by recently-updated. It does not cover pagination behavior, but the key filtering defaults are disclosed.

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?

Effectively four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and each sentence carrying distinct information (combination rule, default filtering, default sort, delegation to get_item). No waste.

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 an output schema present, return-shape explanation is unnecessary, yet the description still notes 'short cards' vs get_item. All 19 parameters are documented in the schema, and the behavioral defaults are covered, so an agent has everything needed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining the AND-combination rule and the interaction between include_finished and the finished category values, which the schema does not state.

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+resource ('Find items') and explicitly differentiates itself from get_item by noting it returns 'short cards' while get_item gives 'the full story'. The scope is somewhat generic but the sibling routing makes the intent 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?

Gives clear operative context: filters combine with AND, finished work is excluded by default unless include_finished is true or a finished category is requested. Routes to get_item for full detail. Does not contrast with my_work or run_view, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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