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

Despite the annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it warns that the results serve "Postgres metadata plus the cached Markdown body" and that ranking can trail live edits by a few seconds. This caching caveat is not captured in annotations or schema and helps set expectations about freshness.

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 opens with the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds caching context, parameter specifics, and an alternative tool in a compact, logical flow. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation details.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers the essential operational concerns: search vs. list mode, workspace inclusion, pagination, and how to fetch the live body. It is complete for a read-only list/search tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `q` "runs hybrid full-text search over title and body; omit it to list" and clarifying the effect of `include_workspace=true`. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter behavior without repeating basic types.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 explicitly gives when-to-use guidance: "Use this to find a canvas by title or body text before reading or editing it." It also provides an alternative by directing the agent to "Use v1GetCanvasContent to read the live body of a result." This makes the choice between listing/searching and reading clear.

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