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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the authorization scope (owned by or shared with the authenticated user) and the fact that matching is literal rather than fuzzy, which sets expectations about recall.

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 sentence with no filler; the access scope and matching mode are front-loaded where an agent will read them first. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, and access scope is stated. The only residual gap is a hint about whether shared items are distinguishable in results, which is minor.

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% and each parameter already carries a precise description, including the 1-100 limit and the 1000-match page cap. The description's 'literal name fragment' reinforces the query parameter's semantics but adds nothing the schema does not already say, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource (playbooks), and the exact scope (owned by or shared with the authenticated user). The matching mode (literal name fragment) further pins down what the call returns, distinguishing it from get_playbook or create_playbook without naming them.

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 implies retrieval-by-fragment, and the schema's 'omit to browse' note fills in the no-query case, but the description itself never says when to prefer this over get_playbook or how it relates to sibling search tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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