search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cross-resource scope of the search, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite offset/limit parameters existing.

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, appropriately sized for the scope statement. It is efficient, though it stops short of the structure (e.g., usage or pagination notes) that a 7-parameter tool could support.

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 7 parameters, 57% schema coverage, no output schema and no title, the description leaves pagination, type filtering, and project scoping entirely to the schema. For a broad search tool it is under-specified about how to constrain and page results.

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 only 57%, and the description adds no meaning beyond it — it does not explain the query parameter, the types filter, project scoping, or how offset/limit paginate. The content-type list loosely maps to the 'types' parameter but is not framed as parameter guidance.

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 ('full text search') and resource ('Redmine') and enumerates the six content types it covers. It is clearer than the bare name 'search', but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_issues, which overlaps with the 'issues' type listed here.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions alternatives such as search_issues for issue-only lookups. An agent must infer from the type list that this is the broader search, which is only implicit.

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