search_work_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond basic search semantics, such as open-world result completeness or pagination behavior, but it is consistent with the annotations.

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 conveys the tool's core behavior with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool whose parameter details live in the schema.

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?

With full parameter descriptions, a read-only/idempotent annotation set, and a simple search purpose, the definition provides enough context for correct invocation. It could be stronger by mentioning pagination or pointing to list_work_packages for unfiltered browsing, but those are not blocking gaps.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the documentation burden. The description only adds a generic 'optional filters' phrase and no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Search'), a resource ('work packages'), and the mechanism ('by text query with optional filters'). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_work_packages, which lists without a query, and get_work_package, which fetches a single item.

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 wording implies use when a text query is available and when filtering is desired, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer search_work_packages over list_work_packages or get_work_package. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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