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's 'Read-only.' largely restates that. It does add value beyond the annotations by describing result semantics — relevance ordering and a fixed/unfixed indicator — which is important because there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and result format, then the workflow rule. The trailing 'Read-only.' is the only near-redundant clause since annotations already assert that, but it is brief and harmless.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it searches, how results are ordered, what each result conveys, and how to act on a match. The only soft spot is the instruction to 'add to it,' which does not map obviously to a named sibling, leaving mild ambiguity about the follow-up call.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the query field as 'What went wrong or what they want, in a few words.' The description adds no additional guidance on formatting or phrasing beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair — searching already-submitted bugs and ideas that match a person's description — and states the result ordering (best match first) plus a key result field (whether each is fixed). It is clearly distinguishable from report_issue, the sibling that creates new items.

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?

It gives an explicit sequencing rule: call this before report_issue, and if a match exists, add to that item rather than filing a new one. Both the when-to-use condition and the alternative tool are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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