linear_searchDocuments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral details beyond basic purpose (e.g., pagination, search behavior). With annotations covering the core behavioral profile, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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—one single sentence that is well front-loaded. However, it sacrifices some useful guidance for brevity. Still, it is not verbose and clearly communicates the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain filtering options (team, archived, etc.) or ordering, but the schema covers those. The description is adequate for a search tool with full schema coverage, but lacks completeness in guiding the agent on when to use this tool over similar ones.

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 input schema already documents each parameter (term, limit, teamId, etc.). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Search Linear documents by term' clearly states the verb (search), resource (Linear documents), and scope (by term). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_searchIssues and linear_searchReleases, which search different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that linear_getDocuments or linear_getProjectDocuments might be more appropriate for retrieving documents without a search term, or contrast with other search tools. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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