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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: variable-name search returns referencing blocks despite blocks storing ids, matching is not tokenized, broadcast-backed flows and operation graphs are excluded, and the tool is read-only. It adds substantial behavioral context above the annotations and never contradicts them.

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 is long but information-dense; it enumerates search targets, explains the variable-name nuance, gives usage guidance, and lists exclusions without repetition. Every sentence contributes a distinct, actionable fact for the agent.

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 search tool with three documented parameters, the description covers the purpose, scope, parameter behavior, exclusions, and alternatives. It also surfaces edge cases like variable ids and personal-key application requirements are covered in the schema. Nothing critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds important query-parameter semantics by explaining that a keyword matching a variable name returns blocks referencing that variable, which plain text search cannot do. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'case-insensitive substring' note, though limit and applicationId semantics are left to 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find every flow and block whose contents contain a keyword.' It enumerates the exact searchable content areas and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_flow_context and list_broadcasts, so an agent can clearly tell what this tool does and does not cover.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of walking flows with get_flow_context when you know what the content says but not where it lives.' It also states exclusions and the correct alternatives: 'Broadcast-backed flows and operation graphs are excluded — use list_broadcasts and the operations tools for those.' This is model guidance.

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