search_status_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not disclose matching semantics (substring vs full-text, which fields are searched, case sensitivity), pagination behavior, or result ordering — all material for a search tool. The only behavioral signal is the implicit read-only nature of 'search'.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though at this length 'concise' shades into under-specified rather than well-trimmed.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: the agent can call it correctly. It is incomplete in that nothing explains how matching works or what the results contain, which matters given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, with both 'keyword' and 'limit' documented inline including the default of 20, so the schema already does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by keyword' only restates the required parameter and adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 gives a clear verb+resource pair ('Search status updates') and adds the primary filter ('by keyword'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. However, it does nothing to separate itself from sibling search tools such as search_summaries, search_issues, or search_context, which share the identical 'search X by keyword' shape.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_status_updates (browse all) or the other search_* tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what happens when the keyword matches nothing. The agent must infer the search-vs-list distinction entirely from the names.

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