read_search

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint: false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: the #id and bare-digit matching semantics, the 'me' shortcut for assignee, the open-cards-only default unless includeClosed, the 'never guessed' resolution of ambiguous names, and the newest-modified-first ordering. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The primary search criteria are front-loaded, followed by key behavioral constraints and ordering. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 search tool with 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description covers the important operational details: field semantics, filtering defaults, ambiguity handling, and sort order. It does not describe pagination beyond the schema's limit field, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic nuance: bare digits match both id and name, 'me' is a self-reference for assignee, and includeClosed controls the open-only default. It does not fully detail all parameters, but it materially enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Find cards') and the resource (cards), and enumerates the searchable fields: text/name/#id, type, state, project, assignee, and tag. This is specific enough to differentiate from tools like read_card, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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?

Usage context is implied through the search criteria and the statement 'Open cards only unless includeClosed.' The description also clarifies resolution behavior for names/states. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like read_query or read_card, nor any when-not-to-use instructions.

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