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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that results are whole flows without step detail, requiring get_flow to expand — useful context beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about result volume or pagination behavior.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the search scope is front-loaded and the follow-up instruction trails it appropriately.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description implies the shape of results (whole flows, no steps) and points to get_flow for detail, which is enough for correct invocation. Remaining gaps — result ordering, pagination across offset/limit — are minor for a read-only search.

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 only 40%: platform and offset are described in-schema, but limit, query and flowIntents are not. The description partially compensates by saying search works 'by intent, app or description', mapping loosely to flowIntents and query, but it never mentions limit/pagination or that 'app' filtering is not a dedicated parameter — which could mislead an agent.

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 (Search) and resource (whole flows), and parenthetically defines a flow as 'ordered screen sequences', which disambiguates it from search_screens. It also names the follow-up sibling get_flow, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

'Then get_flow for the steps' gives explicit sequencing guidance against the most likely alternative sibling. It does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when to prefer get_app_flows or search_screens), so it falls short of a full 5.

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