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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds two behavioral facts not in the annotations: the two-character minimum query length and that archived boards are excluded. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or return shape.

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 compact clauses with zero filler; the search scope is front-loaded and the constraints follow immediately. Every phrase carries information an agent can act on.

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 what is searched, where, and the query constraints. It leaves result ordering and whether results are paginated unspecified, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented ('part of a card title, or a task key like OPUS-451'; 'How many to return (default 20)'). The description's phrasing of the query semantics largely duplicates the schema, and it never mentions the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Find) and resource (cards), plus the scope ('ACROSS all the publisher's boards') and the match modes (title substring or task key). This implicitly separates it from single-card readers like get_kanban_card and from get_my_kanban_tasks, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

The description gives hard constraints ('Two characters minimum', 'archived boards are excluded') that tell the agent when a query will succeed or fail, but it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not route to alternatives such as get_kanban_card or get_my_kanban_tasks. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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