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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds real context: a 50-item cap, the return projection matching azdo_get_work_item minus links, and the non-obvious quirk that the SELECT clause is ignored except for IDs because the tool batch-fetches full fields.

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-loaded with purpose, then return behavior, then syntax examples – a sensible order. The parenthetical asides are slightly dense but each sentence conveys distinct, useful information rather than restating the schema.

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 compensates by describing the return shape (up to 50 items, projection minus links). It covers the essentials for correct invocation; only pagination/auth details are left implicit, which the openWorld annotation partly signals.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by giving two concrete WIQL examples and clarifying that only the SELECT IDs are honored regardless of what fields are projected. This meaningfully augments the wiql parameter beyond its schema entry.

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 (AzDO work items) plus the mechanism (WIQL), and anchors it against a familiar equivalent ('AzDO's equivalent of Jira's JQL'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from azdo_get_work_item and azdo_create_work_item by naming the former for the structured link list.

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?

Routes the agent to azdo_get_work_item when the structured links list is needed, and the schema reinforces narrowing WIQL for wider sweeps. It gives clear context for use but offers no exclusions (e.g., when to prefer jira_search or a non-WIQL path).

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