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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: case-insensitive matching, every word required, any order, and the includeArchived flag. It exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but packed with necessary information. It could be slightly trimmed, but every sentence earns its place, and the usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: matching rules, archived handling, and exclusions. Missing return format is minor and not required for successful invocation.

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 descriptions cover both parameters, but the description adds crucial semantics: the matching rule (all words, any order) and the example clarifying query behavior. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'words to look for'.

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 the specific verb and resource: searching cards by words in title/notes, with clear differentiation from list tools and get_card. The description makes it obvious that this is a search operation, not a list or fetch.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user refers by words, need id/details, or checks existence) and when not to (listing a whole column, pointing to list_cards). The example and exclusion are unambiguous.

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