Similar bugs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it explains the retrieval technique (pgvector nearest-neighbour), the tuning intent, and the ranked return shape. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, return format is summarized, and usage/alternative guidance closes it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from search_reports. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents query as 'Component name, page path, or bug description' and limit with default/max. The description mostly restates this information without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Find existing bugs similar to...') and names the underlying mechanism (pgvector nearest-neighbour search). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_reports by noting it is 'tuned for "have we seen this before?"'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use to dedupe before filing or group regressions; use search_reports for general free-text search.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool versus the relevant alternative.

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