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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: matching is case-insensitive substring, results are natural-sorted, and each match carries a snippet plus the matched field.

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 sentences with zero waste; the matching semantics and scope are front-loaded, and the return shape follows immediately. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 read-only search tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without explaining return values. It lacks only explicit alternative-routing guidance.

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 the schema already documents project_id, query, kinds, and limit in detail. The description's note on case-insensitivity and natural sort adds only marginal meaning over the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (substring search) and resource (a project's stories, requirements, stakeholders, subsystems, interface contracts), enumerating the searchable entity kinds. This implicitly distinguishes it from the many single-kind list tools in the sibling set, which return full entities rather than matches.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (cross-entity substring search) and the schema notes you can restrict kinds or omit to search all. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as stories_list, requirements_list, or stakeholders_list when looking up entities.

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