search_by_field_value

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

No annotations provided; description discloses substring matching, case-insensitivity, and limit behavior. Missing side-effect declaration (read-only) and performance/scaling info, but covers core behavioral traits.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and includes well-structured parameter details (Args:). No redundant 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?

Covers purpose, usage context, and parameters. Does not elaborate on return object structure, but output schema exists, so that is acceptable. Sufficient for a search tool with moderate 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 has 0% description coverage but description thoroughly explains all three parameters: field_id (source from list_custom_fields), value (substring, case-insensitive), limit (default 50, scan cap). Adds significant meaning beyond 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 states 'Find all cards where a custom field contains a given value' with specific examples (branch, PR URL, feature flag), distinguishing it from broader search tools like 'search_cards'.

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 explains it is useful for custom field searches, but doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The context from sibling tool names helps infer its unique role.

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