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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world) by disclosing the async contract: metered as one execution, inline results within ~two seconds, otherwise retain the returned IDs for operation_status/operation_output and do not resend. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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-loads the when-to-use trigger, then return shape, safety, prerequisites, and the async fallback in tightly packed sentences with no filler. Each sentence carries a distinct, load-bearing fact.

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 nine-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema async tool, the description covers the critical agent-facing decision (inline vs. deferred result) and prerequisite IDs. It omits error handling and deadline/idempotency behavior, but those live in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including sessionId's origin and operationId's freshness requirement. The description restates these without adding syntax or format detail, 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 and resource ('find text in the files of an approved project'), which is inherently distinguishable from fs_read (read a file), fs_list (enumerate files), and fs_write/fs_replace. An agent can select this over its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use this when the user wants to find text...'). It gives clear context but names no exclusions or alternative tools for the read-a-known-file case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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