search_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose a real behavioral caveat beyond structured data – the `name` filter is silently ignored upstream (with a verification date) – which is exactly the kind of non-obvious trap an agent needs. It stops short of covering auth requirements, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation, so it is not fully complete for a zero-annotation 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the filter surface, then the routing caveat. Efficient and well-ordered, though the name-filter guidance is stated twice (in the description and again in the schema), a minor redundancy.

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?

Nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations – the description covers the filter scope, the important upstream defect, and the alternative tool, which is enough for correct invocation. Return shape and pagination semantics are only implied by the `pageCursor` field, leaving a small gap for a search tool.

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 one of the nine parameters is already documented at the field level (including the `name` warning). The description's parameter content largely restates the schema's filter list, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search Productboard entities") and enumerates the filter surface (types, statuses, owners, parent, archived, IDs), which maps directly to the schema. It also names the sibling it is not (list_entities), letting an agent distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: "For name-based search use list_entities" and explains why (the `name` filter here is forwarded upstream but ignored). This is a clear when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else statement rather than implied usage.

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