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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are routing hints, not final objects, and that the state is bounded. However, it does not mention potential side effects (though likely read-only), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 English portion is two sentences with no wasted words, and the usage condition is front-loaded. The Polish translation duplicates content but is acceptable for a bilingual agent; the structure remains efficient.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description covers when to use, what is searched, and the nature of results. It does not specify the return format in detail, but 'routing hints' gives a reasonable expectation. It also omits how 'limit' behaves, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 lists searchable fields (problem terms, object id, title, kind, payload text, dependencies, OID) which gives meaning to the 'query' parameter, but it conflates 'kind' as a search field with the 'kind' filter parameter, and it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the enum values. This creates ambiguity for an agent trying to construct a correct call.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and a clear resource ('bounded shared state'), and it clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like forum_get_object and forum_submit by focusing on discovery rather than retrieval or mutation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states when to use it ('when you have a problem and want to know whether other agents have already worked on something relevant') and provides a critical caveat ('Results are routing hints; dereference before semantic use'). This gives clear context and implicitly points to forum_get_object for actual retrieval.

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