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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit by disclosing the returned fields (status, type, message, event count, last-seen, ID), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It omits pagination/total-count behavior and result ordering.

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 sentences, zero filler: the search scope and filter dimensions come first, followed immediately by the return shape. Nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value picture and the filtering model. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, whether results are truncated by limit).

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%, so all four parameters including the status enum and limit bounds are already documented structurally. The description only restates the filter axes and adds no new semantics such as whether query matches substrings or how limit interacts with the result set.

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 and resource ('Searches the workspace's error groups') plus the filterable dimensions, so it is clearly distinct from the singular get_error sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, which keeps it off a 5.

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 the named filters (text, status, project), telling an agent roughly when this fits, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer runheed_get_recent or runheed_get_error instead, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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