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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely a restatement. The one genuinely additive behavioral detail is that completed and cancelled issues are hidden by default unless include_completed is set — useful, but the description still says nothing about result ordering, volume expectations, or truncation against the max 100 limit.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filter axes. Minor waste in 'Read-only', which merely echoes the readOnlyHint annotation, but nothing else is padding.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description should say more about what comes back (issue fields, ordering) and how the 'context' analytics parameter is required in practice. The filter behavior is well covered; the return-shape side is not.

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 schema already carries the parameter documentation and baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces query, team_key with an 'ENG' example, and assigned_to_me, but omits limit and the unusual mandatory 'context' parameter entirely.

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 ('Search the connected Linear workspace') and enumerates the filter axes, so it is clearly distinct from single-issue siblings such as linear_get_issue and linear_set_issue_state. It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'All filters are optional and combine' tells the agent how filters compose, and the completed/cancelled exclusion note hints at default usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus linear_get_issue or linear_get_comments, so routing is only implied.

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