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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the 'tenant activity index' framing and filter dimensions, with no pagination, ordering, or result-size behavior beyond the limit param.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a quoted example, with the core purpose front-loaded. The example earns its place by illustrating filter combinations, though it is slightly redundant with the preceding enumeration.

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 read-only, idempotent search tool with a fully documented schema and no required params, the description supplies purpose and a use scenario. Return ordering/pagination nuances are not covered, but the absence of an output schema and the strong annotation coverage keep this near-complete.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's example implicitly shows how agent_name, namespace, and op combine, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('filtered search over the tenant activity index') and enumerates the search dimensions (agent, namespace, create/update/delete). An agent can tell it is a search tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like index_recent or search_facts.

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 coordination scenario ('what did emily_dev store in the sprint namespace today?') gives a concrete when-to-use signal. However, no alternatives are named and there is no when-not guidance versus index_recent, index_stats, or search_context.

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