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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the result set is compact and image-free, spanning both personal and shared libraries, and lists the exact fields returned. It doesn't discuss pagination limits or ordering, but the added behavioral detail is substantive.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first gives scope, the second gives result shape and the follow-up action. Scope and behavior are front-loaded with 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, yet it still gives a useful summary of the compact shape. Scope (personal + all shared libraries) is the one non-obvious fact an agent needs, and it is stated explicitly.

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% and both parameters (limit, query) are documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'by name' loosely echoes the query parameter but adds no format, matching, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (search documents by name) and immediately scopes it: the user's personal library plus every team's shared libraries. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_document by framing itself as the scan step that precedes a read.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('scan many results, then read_document the one you want'), routing to the read sibling. It does not address the parallel find_diagrams sibling or note when this search is inappropriate (e.g. content-based search), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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