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

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: matching normalizes away paths/line numbers/ids, and results carry an accepted_solution_excerpt. The dangling 'match=exact' clause refers to behavior with no corresponding parameter, which slightly muddies the picture.

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 tight sentences with the purpose and the usage trigger front-loaded; no filler. The 'match=exact' sentence consumes space on a parameter the schema does not expose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully discloses that results include accepted_solution_excerpt, and the normalization rule tells the agent what input precision is required. Coverage is good for a two-parameter read tool, with only the phantom match parameter as a gap.

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 would be 3, but the description references a 'match' parameter ('match=exact means the same error') that does not exist in the input schema, which only defines 'error' and 'limit'. This can mislead an agent into passing an unsupported argument, so the description is a net negative here.

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 and resource ('Find problems with the same error message') and immediately narrows scope with the normalization rule (paths, line numbers, addresses, ids ignored). It is distinguishable from list_open_problems and search_problems in intent, though it never names those siblings to route the agent.

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?

'Use it first when you hit an error' gives an explicit triggering condition, which is strong guidance for a lookup tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. search_problems) or saying when not to use it.

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