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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY' and 'changes nothing,' and adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are compact hits and tools are invoked indirectly via call_read/call_write. No contradiction with 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 short sentences, with the most important constraint (READ-ONLY) front-loaded. Every sentence carries meaning; no filler or redundant schema repetition beyond the intentional safety emphasis.

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?

The tool has an output schema and full parameter documentation, so return values and parameters are already covered. The description provides the remaining essential context: read-only behavior, natural-language search, compact hits, and the call_read/call_write indirection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the query is a natural-language search for an inner tool_id, which complements the schema's parameter description and clarifies the tool's role.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('PaperOffice tool catalog'), with the key qualifier 'by natural language.' It distinguishes itself from document search siblings by targeting the tool catalog itself, not documents.

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 explains that the search returns compact hits and that inner tools run only through call_read or call_write, giving the agent a clear workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage is strongly implied and useful.

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