search_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that results are 'most relevant matching requests' and includes vote counts and MRR, implying a read-only search with relevance ranking. However, it does not mention potential side effects, auth requirements, or behavior such as pagination or default project scoping, which would increase transparency.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key output and use cases. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content ('vote counts and MRR') and the use case. It does not describe the response structure in detail, but for a search tool with three well-documented parameters, this is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like 'q' and 'limit.' It does not explain parameter interactions or edge cases, but the schema itself is descriptive, so no major gap exists.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search feature requests by a text query.' It specifies the resource (feature requests) and the action (search), and adds detail about returning 'vote counts and MRR,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feature_requests that list all requests rather than searching.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'useful for finding related feedback before opening a new request or exploring a specific feature area.' It implies when to use it but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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