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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses defaults (isAgentTool false, limit 30), bounds (max 100), rejection behavior for partial triples and mismatched hostType combos, and the important caveat that requiresOAuth means a connection is needed, not that one exists, pointing to get_block_schema connections.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and result shape, then parameter semantics in a logical order, with essentially no filler. It is dense and clause-heavy, using semicolons and parentheticals where short sentences would read more cleanly.

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 an eight-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers selection logic, filtering constraints, defaults, limits, failure modes, and the returned row fields. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and to interpret results.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the permitted registerAs values per isAgentTool mode, the semantics of isAgentTool, the limit default and ceiling, the meaning of requiresOAuth, and the all-three-or-none rule for the service-identifying triple.

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 concrete verb and resource: keyword search over extension methods in this workspace and shared extensions, with a stated query format (1-3 words with examples). It also specifies the row shape (id, registerAs, requiresOAuth, hostType/packageId/serviceId). It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from search_shared_extensions or list_extension_methods, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 spells out exactly which mode to choose: isAgentTool false for add_block actions/triggers, true for add_agent_tool (and notes triggers are never returned in that mode). It gives the registerAs compatibility matrix, the rule that hostType/packageId/serviceId must be passed together, and what happens when query is omitted.

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