search_work_items

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds nothing about result capping (the `top` default of 100), ordering, or truncation behavior, which are the behaviors an agent most needs to know when paging or judging completeness.

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 opening sentence states purpose first, then one compact line per parameter with the field name leading. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries operational detail such as delimiters, wildcards, and hierarchy expansion.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the annotations cover safety. But for a twelve-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, omitting `top`, `state`, `project`, `priority`, and `changed_in_last_days` leaves half the filter surface undocumented, which is a real gap for an agent composing a precise query.

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 0%, so the description bears full burden and it does cover roughly seven of the twelve parameters with genuine added meaning: `text` matching title or numeric ID, `"@me"` for `assigned_to`/`created_by`, `;`-delimited AND semantics for `tags`, comma-delimited `work_item_type`, and child-inclusive `iteration_path`/`area_path`. But `top`, `state`, `project`, `priority`, and `changed_in_last_days` get no explanation at all, leaving important filters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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+resource ("Search work items") and adds scope ("of any type"), which is enough to tell it apart from get_work_item and get_work_item_history. It does not, however, distinguish itself from query_wiql, the closest sibling for searching work items, so an agent still has to guess which search path to take.

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?

Usage is only implied: the per-field matching notes suggest a structured-filter search, and the absence of any WIQL syntax implies this is the simpler option. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to query_wiql for complex or cross-field queries.

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