search_chromium_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'full-text search' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination behavior beyond the schema's 'start_index', or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the missing 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without wasted words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, target, and scope.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 3 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, result structure) and doesn't explain return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'query' parameter searches across multiple fields, which is already covered in the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('issues in the Chromium issue tracker') with scope ('full-text search across titles, descriptions, and metadata'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_chromium_issue' (which likely retrieves a specific issue) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_chromium_code' or 'search_chromium_commits' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage for searching issues via text queries, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_chromium_issue' (for specific issues) or other search tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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