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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: newest-created-first ordering, empty array instead of error on no matches, pagination semantics, and total_count meaning. This is exactly the kind of contextual behavior that helps an agent trust and interpret results.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries behavioral value. It is slightly long and contains minor redundancy between 'Title-substring' and 'database case-insensitive substring on the card title only', but it remains well-structured for the nuance it conveys.

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 provides the return shape ('action-sufficient card summaries' with key fields), ordering, pagination parameters, and empty-result behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and correctly interpret its response.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including defaults, ranges, and matching semantics. The description reinforces pagination and the no-match result but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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'), a precise resource scope ('within one project', kanban board and backlog), and the exact matching criterion ('case-insensitive substring on the card title only'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the search tool and clarifies what it does not cover (descriptions and comments), so agents can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 explicit direction: use this tool for title-only card search within a project, and use the search tool when full-text search across all content types is needed. It also communicates scope constraints and the exact matching behavior, making the selection decision clear. The main alternative is explicitly named.

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