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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: literal-text matching (no wildcard patterns) and that results are hosted URLs for reuse. No return-format detail beyond that, but the safety profile is already covered.

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 the core action in the first line, then three short supporting sentences. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile and the description covers the literal-search behavior and URL return, so most agent needs are met. Remaining gaps are parameter semantics for type and limit, which neither the description nor schema prose fully documents.

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 only 25% (just cursor), so the description must carry weight. It implies filename matching via the 'search' field, but adds nothing about the 'type' enum or the 'limit' bounds/default, leaving those documented only by the schema structure.

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 and resource ('Search saved media') and elaborates with 'Search your saved files by filename, across upload folders.' This distinguishes it from listing tools like listMedia or listVideos, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by filename, across upload folders,' but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance. It never states how it relates to listMedia or when a browse should be preferred over a search.

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