Clear Tracker search scroll

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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces this by calling it 'harmless housekeeping' and stating it 'Returns an acknowledgement on success,' adding behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It doesn't discuss failure modes (e.g. expired scroll ids), leaving a small gap.

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?

Two tight sentences; the core purpose and the 'harmless housekeeping' qualifier are front-loaded, followed by the parameter mapping and return behavior. No filler, though the docstring markup (``...``) is slightly noisy.

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 single-parameter housekeeping tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input provenance, and return behavior. It is essentially complete, with only failure/error handling left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics: the body maps each `X-Scroll-Id` to its `X-Scroll-Token` taken from a scrolled `issues.search` response, explaining where the values originate. This exceeds what the schema text alone conveys.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Release the server resources of a scrolled issue search.' It clearly ties the tool to `issues.search` scrolls, distinguishing it from generic search/list siblings. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tool (e.g. tracker_issues_search) it complements, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 is implied by 'of a scrolled issue search' and the parenthetical '(harmless housekeeping)', which hints this is optional cleanup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (having an active scroll), and no named alternative or condition that selects this tool.

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