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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered, and 'Reads only' largely duplicates that. The description earns credit by disclosing result ordering and exclusion rules and by explaining the linear/github connection and account-link flags in the response.

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-loads the core action and scoping rule, then adds the hand-off mapping and result-field notes. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the opening sentence is a long run-on that could be split.

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 still explains the returned linear/github status fields, the search ordering, the exclusion criteria, and how to act on results. An agent has everything needed to search and then delegate correctly.

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 real meaning: it explains that Linear results pass their identifier as id while GitHub results pass owner/name as repo plus number, which clarifies how repo and the returned identifiers feed into delegate_ticket.

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 (open Linear and GitHub issues) and narrows scope to issues 'you could delegate to Sinatra.' It implicitly separates itself from delegate_ticket and the task-management siblings by framing itself as the discovery step.

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 clear context: search yours first, then your team's unassigned, excluding issues assigned to others or already in progress, and explicitly routes results to delegate_ticket with the exact parameter mapping. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or an alternative search path.

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