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

Although annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot express: AND-of-words matching across name, tags, folder names and body text, best-first ranking, per-hit fields (id, kind, path, folderPath, tags, snippet), recursive folderId scoping, and permission-based result filtering ('only what the user can see, and only kinds this token may read').

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?

Purpose and the 'use it FIRST' rule are front-loaded, and every later sentence adds either query semantics, return shape, or id-chaining guidance. The long enumeration of object kinds is the one place it runs heavy, though it doubles as scope documentation.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs about results (fields, ranking, snippet meaning, using folderPath to say where a thing lives) and how to chain ids into workspace_files_read or the kind's *_get tool. Permissions, empty-result handling, and workspace/scope limits are all covered.

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 80%, but the description still adds real meaning: it explains what the q words are matched against (name, tags, parent folder names, inner text) and gives worked examples ('northwind sow' finds the SOW in the Northwind folder). It also clarifies folderId is recursive, matching the schema, and leaves well-documented kinds/limit/workspace 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?

Opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Finds anything in the workspace in one call', then enumerates the object kinds covered (files, folders, flows, shims, knowledge bases, tasks, pages, datasets, evals, rubrics, reviews, specs, sources, Ledger entries, Napkin artifacts). This clearly separates it from focused siblings like compass_pages_search, search_docs, workbench_kb_search, and rooms_search, which each cover one kind.

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?

Explicit trigger condition: 'Use it FIRST whenever the user mentions something without saying where it lives', backed by three concrete user-phrase examples. It also gives a recovery procedure when results are empty ('try fewer or different words before telling the user it doesn't exist'), which is when-to-use guidance beyond the happy path.

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