search_bugs_by_product_series_affected

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key constraints (no leading zeros, single status filter, exact severity filter) but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the important notes are highlighted with 'IMPORTANT'. No unnecessary 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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does, required params, format guidelines, and filter limitations. It lacks output format details but the schema descriptions are comprehensive.

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 description adds value beyond the parameter descriptions with examples for product_series and affected_releases, and explicit constraints like status limitation and severity exact filter. It enriches the schema definitions.

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 specifies the action ('Search bugs') and the resource ('by product series and affected releases'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_bugs_by_product_name_affected by focusing on product series names and affected releases.

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?

It provides important usage notes such as the API version format and that only one status is allowed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over similar siblings like search_bugs_by_product_name_affected.

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