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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose that the search is full-text, limited to Celestia ecosystem, and over an index ('blobpedia's indexed GitHub issues'). However, it does not state the result shape, default filtering behavior, or whether the index is live; those are left to the input schema or implied by 'search.'

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 sentences with no filler: scope is front-loaded, use cases are in the second sentence, and the alternative is in the last. Every sentence contributes and the text is compact.

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?

The tool is a simple 4-parameter search with one required parameter, and the schema fully documents each parameter. The description covers scope, use cases, and the main sibling distinction; the only minor gap is not describing the return shape, but for a full-text search this is largely self-evident.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general query semantics; baseline 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?

The description begins with a specific verb and object: 'Full-text search across blobpedia's indexed GitHub issues across Celestia repos.' It clearly identifies the corpus and ecosystem scope, and the final sentence distinguishes it from the broader `search` tool, so it does not depend solely on the tool name.

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?

It directly states the intended use: 'Use to find prior reports, open bugs, or requested features.' It also gives an explicit alternative and condition: for broader cross-corpus search, use `search` with type='github'. This is actionable guidance rather than inference.

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