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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what the result rows contain (exact error, tool, affected versions, one-line fix, page URLs) and the special empty-query mode. No pagination/limit behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by acceptable input forms, return contents, and the edge case. The inline example earns its place by clarifying what 'fragment' means.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so competently. Minor gap: the optional tool filter and limit default (5, max 20) are never mentioned, and 'lists every fix page' sits slightly uneasily with a default limit of 5.

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 67% (tool and query are described, limit is not). The description expands query semantics well beyond the schema's 'Error text or a fragment of it' by allowing full terminal output and describing the empty-query case. It says nothing about the optional tool filter or the limit cap, so it only partially compensates.

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 (find) and resource (the fix page) scoped to CLI error messages, and the empty-query behavior further pins down what the tool returns. An agent can tell this apart from get_fix (single lookup) and search_posts (different resource) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: paste the exact error line, a fragment, or the whole terminal output, plus the empty-query listing case. It does not name an alternative (e.g. get_fix when the page id is already known), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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