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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: case-insensitive substring matching, the list of searched fields, the ranked result shape with kind-prefixed ids, and the 50-match limit. This gives the agent a clear model of behavior beyond safety annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: triggering intent, search scope and matching behavior, result format, and limit warning. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the usage guidance first.

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?

Given a single parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to call, what is searched, what the response contains, and how to handle truncation. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema already describes query as a required free-text, case-insensitive string, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the query is matched against, that matches are ranked, and that results are truncated at 50, which enriches the single parameter's 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: keyword search across tasks, sprints, decisions, and memory notes, with concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes search from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_context by focusing on arbitrary keyword lookup rather than structured listing.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to find anything the board remembers by keyword' and provides example user intents. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or contrast with alternative siblings, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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