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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing conditional return behavior (count > 0 vs count = 0), the required next actions like record_agent_usage, and the safety requirement to strip PII, secrets, and internal paths from queries. No contradiction with 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 organized into clear labeled sections: Use when, Returns, Do not use when, Safety. Every sentence carries a distinct operational rule, and the most important usage trigger is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential runtime context: when to call it, what it returns, how to handle both count outcomes, which sibling to use instead, and input sanitization requirements. Nothing needed for correct invocation appears 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%, and the schema already thoroughly describes query, limit, sort, and category_path, including nuances like soft-boosting vs hard-filtering. The description adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond restating the PII-stripping rule already present in the query parameter's schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with a specific trigger ('user is blocked by a package, setup, runtime, config, or integration problem') and names the action ('search shared fixes'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_open_issues by saying browsing the open-issue queue should use that sibling instead, so an agent can select this tool correctly.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use when' section and a 'Do not use when' section, naming search_open_issues as the alternative. It also gives conditional instructions for the count=0 path, including when to file an open issue based on attempt churn, which is precise decision guidance.

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