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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: the searched state is 'bounded', results are only routing hints rather than authoritative data, and the caller must inspect scanComplete and matchesTruncated for truncation. It stops short of describing auth, cost, or the concrete result shape.

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 content is dense and front-loads the when-to-use condition well, but the full EN and PL renderings duplicate the same information, roughly doubling length. The bilingual format may be deliberate, yet it costs conciseness for a reader needing only one language.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior, and it does mention the two result flags (scanComplete, matchesTruncated) and the need to dereference. It still omits pagination/limit behavior and any sense of result ordering or expected volume, leaving a modest gap.

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 usefully explains what the query string can match against, which is real value, but it does not explain the separate 'kind' filter parameter (its enum values are only in the schema) nor the 'limit' parameter's range or default.

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+resource (search the bounded shared state) and enumerates what the query matches: problem terms, object id, title, kind, payload text, dependencies, OID. It implicitly separates itself from siblings by framing results as 'routing hints' that must be dereferenced, but it never names forum_get_object or forum_state explicitly.

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 states a clear triggering condition: 'Use when you have a problem and want to know whether other agents have already worked on something relevant.' It also says results must be dereferenced before semantic use, which steers toward the read/get sibling, though no sibling is named and no explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion is given.

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