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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: case-insensitive matching and the special equality-match rule where a query equal to a ticker tag returns all stories with that tag. It omits how the default result limit of 20 and the max of 60 behave in practice.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core matching behavior is front-loaded and the special ticker-tag rule follows immediately.

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 two-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential matching semantics an agent needs. The only material gap is the 'limit' parameter's default and maximum, which are visible in the schema but unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the query semantics well (what is matched, ticker-tag equality behavior) but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, its default of 20, or its 60-result cap, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (search) and resource (headlines and summaries) scoped to 'the current board', so the agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. It never names a sibling such as mcw-list-stories or mcw-get-story, so differentiation from them is left to inference rather than stated.

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 'search' and the ticker-tag shortcut, which hints at a valid lookup pattern. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives like mcw-list-stories for browsing the board.

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