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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a duplicate-check rationale but says nothing about result ordering, page size, or what a page of results contains beyond what the cursor parameter implies.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the workflow constraint second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 simple read-only search over four fully-documented parameters with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that it never hints at pagination behavior, though the cursor parameter in the schema largely compensates.

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%, so all four parameters (query, cursor, status, project) are already documented with format hints and enum values. The description's "by status or text" merely corresponds to two of them without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 (search) and resource (a project's milestones) plus the two filter dimensions (status, text), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It's distinguishable from get_milestone and propose_milestone, though it doesn't explicitly name them as siblings.

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?

"Check this before proposing a new milestone so you don't file a duplicate" gives a concrete trigger and implicitly routes the agent away from propose_milestone. It doesn't say when to prefer get_milestone for a known milestone, so the routing is not fully exhaustive.

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