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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does supply useful traits: case-insensitivity, the searched fields, newest-first ordering, and a hard cap of 50 on limit. It still omits pagination/offset behavior, whether the search spans all sources, and what an empty result set looks like — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the search scope and ordering come first, the constraint second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers scope, ordering, and the limit cap. Minor gaps remain (no-match behavior, whether the cap is a validation error or a silent clamp, no cross-source scope statement), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real value on 'limit' by stating the maximum of 50 (the schema only shows a default of 20), and clarifies that 'query' matches titles and summaries case-insensitively. It does not explain the default value or what happens if limit is omitted.

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 ('text search over change titles and summaries') plus the search field scope and sort order, which is more than the name alone conveys. It implies a filtered-search role distinct from recent_changes/get_change, but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for keyword lookup rather than fetching a known change. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use (e.g., prefer recent_changes for browsing), and no mention of alternatives.

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