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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with result ordering (latest version first) and per-item contents (family, brief's first line), but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter's own schema note.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the result set and ordering, then the search semantics. No filler clauses.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so (family, brief first line, version ordering). Pagination is only implied through the cursor parameter, leaving a small gap for a paged list tool.

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 67%, with limit and cursor already documented; the description compensates on the undocumented query parameter by describing match fields, case-insensitivity, and ranking. It adds little about cursor or the limit maximum, but the important gap is filled.

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 ("Lists this workspace's diagrams") plus ordering and per-item return shape, so it is clearly distinct from diagram_get. It does not explicitly name the siblings it is not (e.g. diagram_get for a single diagram), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explains what query searches (title, key, brief), that matching is case-insensitive, and that title matches rank first — clear guidance on how to use search versus a plain listing. It omits explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing.

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