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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds pagination behavior ('Results are paginated') and the default project scope, which are useful but not extensive. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or output format, though output schema covers the latter.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero redundancy. It efficiently conveys the search scope, filter categories, default project behavior, and pagination without wasting words.

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?

Despite having 16 parameters, the schema and output schema carry most of the detailed information. The description covers the essential context: the default project scope when no filters are applied, and pagination. It does not explain how to combine filters or the return structure, but those are documented in the schemas, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 81%, so most parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists filter dimensions (text, dates, author, status, tags, priority) that map to existing schema properties (query, created_after/before, author, status, tags, priority), but it adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('authorized projects for website and asset feedback'), and lists the filter dimensions (text, dates, author, status, tags, priority). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_comments by emphasizing search across projects with filters, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

The description provides a key usage condition: 'Without project filters, searches all projects granted to this connection.' This clarifies scope, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search or list_comments, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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