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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so description contributes the return behavior ('returns matching document snippets without changing content') and the prerequisite dependency. It doesn't describe result ordering or pagination behavior, but the additions are meaningful beyond 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then the read-only guarantee, then the prerequisite. No sentence is wasteful and each carries distinct information.

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 scoped search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, return shape, and prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces that space_id must come from list-spaces, which the schema already states, adding no new syntax or semantic detail.

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') with concrete resources ('pages, docs, documents, or content') and an explicit scope constraint ('inside one specific Space'). This distinguishes it from the global search sibling without needing to name it.

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?

Provides clear usage context ('when the user wants to find pages, docs, documents, or content inside one specific Space') and a prerequisite (numeric space_id from list-spaces). It does not explicitly name the alternative global-search tool or state when to prefer it over this scoped search.

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