Longhand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'raw episode rows' and is for 'structured search', which gives some context about output format and operation type. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits that would be valuable for a search tool.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence explains what the tool does and its parameters, while the second provides clear usage guidance. Every element serves a purpose and is front-loaded appropriately.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the core purpose and usage guidelines well, but lacks details about return format structure, error handling, and behavioral constraints that would be important for proper tool invocation.

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?

The description lists key filter parameters (project_ids, time range, keyword, has_fix) which provides semantic context beyond the 50% schema description coverage. While it doesn't explain all 6 parameters in detail, it meaningfully supplements the schema by highlighting the main filtering dimensions, compensating for the moderate schema coverage gap.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verb ('structured search') and resource ('problem→fix episodes'), and distinguishes it from narrative-focused alternatives by emphasizing it returns 'raw episode rows' and 'data instead of narrative'. This differentiation from potential siblings is explicit and helpful.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you already know the project or want data instead of narrative'), which helps the agent choose between this search tool and narrative-oriented alternatives. The context is clear and directly addresses the decision-making scenario.

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