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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: results are scoped to the caller's permission level, and each hit carries method, url template, parameters, and request body schema — which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting rate limits or result-ordering/relevance behavior.

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 return shape, then the follow-up routing instruction, then parameters. The parameter list duplicates what the schema already documents, which is mild waste, but the prose itself is dense and free of filler.

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 simple parameters and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what it searches, permission scoping, the shape of each result, and which sibling to call next with the returned method/url. No material gap remains.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's parameter block largely restates the schema (query required, tags as category filter, limit default 5 / max 10) with no added semantics such as how multiple tags combine (AND vs OR) or how matching is performed.

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: searching the Teable REST API by keyword or description, and names exactly what is returned (matching endpoints). It also names the sibling tools (call-api-read / call-api-write) that consume the results, so it is distinguishable from every other tool in the list.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use call-api-read for GET endpoints and call-api-write for POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE, passing method and url unchanged. That is a concrete when-to-use-this and what-to-do-next instruction, not an inference the agent has to make.

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