FogBugz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about search syntax and examples, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by three specific examples that each demonstrate different search patterns. Every sentence earns its place by illustrating practical usage without unnecessary elaboration.

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 good annotations (readOnlyHint) and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context about search syntax and examples. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by showing what types of results to expect through the examples.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description provides helpful examples of query syntax but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for 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 clearly states the specific action ('Searches for FogBugz cases') and resource ('FogBugz cases'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_case (single case retrieval) or list_my_cases (pre-filtered list). It explicitly mentions the search syntax, which differentiates it from simpler listing tools.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (searching with FogBugz syntax) through multiple examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like list_my_cases for a user's own cases or get_case for single-case retrieval by ID.

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