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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral value: case-insensitivity and the fact that matching is limited to headlines/summaries rather than full story text. However, it says nothing about result ordering, whether matches span the whole board or a topic, or what happens with an empty/missing query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint (headlines and summaries, current board) arrives immediately. Every word earns its place, though the economy comes at the cost of completeness elsewhere.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: it omits result shape, ordering, the limit's default/cap, and the board context requirement. An agent could invoke it but would have to guess at nearly all of its behavioral contract.

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% for both parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning — yet it only implies a query string exists and never mentions 'limit', its default of 20, or its maximum of 60. The two most behaviorally consequential constraints of this tool are left entirely undocumented.

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 the exact resource scope it covers (headlines and summaries of the current board), which lets an agent distinguish it from the retrieval-oriented siblings like mcw-get-story or mcw-list-stories. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to search versus browsing with mcw-list-stories/mcw-list-topics, nor any stated preconditions such as needing an active board. The 'current board' phrasing hints at a context dependency but never states it as a requirement.

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