search_bugs_by_product_name_affected

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While the tool's name and description imply a read-only search operation, it does not explicitly state safety or idempotency. Behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits are not mentioned. The parameter descriptions are detailed, but the narrative description lacks additional behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide immediate usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects, and the schema descriptions are highly detailed. However, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of bugs with basic fields), which is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mainly reiterating the product name requirement and pointing to a sibling tool. The schema descriptions themselves are thorough, covering enums, defaults, and usage notes, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Search bugs by full product name and affected releases', specifying the verb (search) and resource (bugs) with a clear scope (by product name and affected releases). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_bugs_by_product_id', which is mentioned explicitly.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (full descriptive product names) and when not to use it (product IDs), providing an alternative: 'Use search_bugs_by_product_id for product IDs'. Additionally, parameter descriptions for 'status' and 'severity' provide clear constraints (only one status allowed, use multi_severity_search for ranges).

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