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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety burden is met. The description adds only the 'newest first' ordering guarantee, and says nothing about capped result sets or what a hit contains.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the scope, then the ordering, then the filter facets — no 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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what a result contains and how paging/limits behave; it gives ordering but leaves return shape and default/max limits implicit. Adequate for a filtered search, but not complete.

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 60% and `query` has no schema description at all; the description compensates by specifying it searches title, description, page and transcript. `problems_only` is redundant with its schema text, and `since`/`limit` are not addressed beyond the schema's own notes.

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 ('Find recordings in the workspace') and enumerates the searchable facets, which distinguishes it from the get_* siblings that retrieve a single recording. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the facet list — an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to locate recordings rather than fetch one by id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to the get_* siblings for single-record retrieval.

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