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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is largely covered. The description adds useful context by specifying what is returned (matching titles, snippets, Space details, URLs), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, followed by the read-only guarantee and return contents. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains scope, read-only behavior, and return fields. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, but the schema covers per_page, so this is a minor gap.

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% for both parameters (query, per_page), so the schema already documents required input and limits. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (documents across every accessible Space), and explicitly contrasts its scope with searching 'one known Space,' which distinguishes it from the sibling search-space-documents tool. It also names the return contents (titles, snippets, Space details, URLs).

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when the user wants to search documents across every accessible Space') and an implicit when-not ('rather than one known Space'). However, it does not name the alternative tool (search-space-documents) explicitly, leaving the agent to infer which sibling to use for a single Space.

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