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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: no auth required, case-insensitive matching, ranked ordering, and the shape of each hit (snippet, slug, story_id when matched in a story).

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then matching fields, then behavior, then return shape, then args — a logical funnel with no filler. Dense but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return payload (ranked hits with snippet, slug, and optional story_id). Combined with auth status, matching scope, and parameter constraints, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 with their bounds. The description's inline 'Args' block merely restates q (2-120 chars) and limit (max 50, default 10) without adding syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond the schema. 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 (every published SIGNAL issue), and the search semantics inherently distinguish it from enumeration siblings like ic_signal_list_issues and lookup siblings like ic_signal_get_issue. The list of matched fields (issue title/dek, beat label/kicker, story headline/dek/body) pins down the scope precisely.

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: reach for this when you have free text to locate within issues rather than a known slug or ID. However, no sibling is named and there is no when-not guidance (e.g., use ic_signal_list_issues for browsing, ic_signal_get_issue for a known slug), so the agent must infer the routing.

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