search_feature_feedback

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly does not. It discloses that results span bug reports, feature requests, feedback, and support questions, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, sorting, or whether include_solved behaves differently for articles vs tickets.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a scannable bullet list of content types and a single concrete example. Slightly list-heavy but every line earns its place without redundancy.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema and the description conveys scope and matching semantics. For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, though, the absence of any return-volume, pagination, or ordering information leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect from a call.

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 baseline is 3, but the worked example ('collections' will find all tickets and articles mentioning collections) adds genuine semantic meaning: it clarifies that feature_name is a keyword mention match, not an exact taxonomy lookup.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (tickets and articles related to a feature), and frames itself as a convenience aggregate. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_tickets and search_articles because it spans both content types, though it never names those alternatives.

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 framing as a 'convenience tool' and the enumeration of content types implies when it is appropriate (broad feature-oriented sweep rather than a targeted ticket/article lookup). However, it never states when to prefer search_tickets or search_articles instead, so routing guidance is only implied.

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