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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it reveals that only UNRESOLVED issues are returned, that results come from specific sources, that fixes/solutions are never returned, and that an empty response occurs when no open issue matches. It does not cover output format, authentication, or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are 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?

The description is three sentences and dense with useful information. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides exclusions, empty-result behavior, and an alternative tool in a tight, well-ordered structure with no wasted 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?

Given only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: scope, source types, purpose, limitations, empty result behavior, and alternative routing. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the input should be a 'free-text description' rather than a stack trace, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for either the description or limit parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Surface known UNRESOLVED problems matching a free-text description'. It further disambiguates with concrete inclusion criteria ('forum threads with zero replies but high views, plus open GitHub issues') and explicit exclusions ('Does NOT return fixes, solutions, config, or how-to steps'), making it clearly distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Answers "is anyone else hitting this?"') and when not to: 'for "how do I fix / configure / why does X happen" use semantic_search (then get_doc) instead.' The input schema also steers stack traces to diagnose_error, providing clear routing among alternatives.

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