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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: results are excerpts, not full documents, and solved problems are included in the index. It doesn't address result volume or pagination behavior, but limit semantics live in the 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 with no filler. Scope, the call-to-action prerequisite, and the result-format caveat with its follow-up tool are all front-loaded and each earns its place.

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 correctly compensates by telling the agent that results are excerpts and where to get full text. Combined with 100% schema coverage on parameters, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only result pagination/ordering is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (query keywords, limit default/max). The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail for the query beyond what the schema already says, so 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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (problems), plus an explicit scope qualifier: 'including solved ones.' That scope note distinguishes it from list_open_problems and find_by_error without needing to inspect schemas.

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 a clear directive to search before posting a new problem, and routes the agent to get_problem for full text. It does not explain when to prefer find_by_error (another search-like sibling) over this tool, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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