search_work_items

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no statement about permissions, result limits, cost of wildcard searches, or what the faceting results look like. 'Across projects in Azure DevOps' conveys scope, but pagination, default behavior, and response shape are left entirely to the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. Its brevity costs content rather than wasting it, but the sentence itself earns its place.

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?

This is a relatively complex tool with 8 parameters, nested filter and orderBy objects, 4 required fields, and no output schema or annotations to fill gaps. One generic sentence is not enough to explain search semantics, pagination, or how results are faceted for an agent to call it confidently.

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 every parameter including the nested filters and orderBy entries is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about search text syntax, supported operators, or how filters combine, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 for work items') and adds scope ('across projects in Azure DevOps'), so an agent knows this is a text-search operation rather than a plain listing. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_work_items, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_work_items or get_work_item, no mention of prerequisites, and no note about when faceting or filtering is appropriate. The only hint of usage is the word 'search', which implies free-text lookup but is never contrasted against the sibling list tool.

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