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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and closed-world safety, so the description's job is lighter. It nonetheless adds real value by disclosing result ordering ('Newest first') and the returned fields (id, name, type), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, ordering, and return shape. Lead sentence states the resource, and nothing is redundant with the title.

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 correctly supplies the return fields, and it states ordering. Minor gaps remain: no mention of default/max limit behavior or pagination, and no note on what happens when query is empty beyond the schema's own hint.

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%: limit and query are documented, while type is only self-describing via its enum. The description's enumeration of content types loosely mirrors the enum but adds no new constraint or format detail, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (team content shown on a screen), then enumerates the five content types so the agent knows exactly what is searchable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_scenes, but the resource scope is distinctive enough to avoid confusion.

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?

The description implies a search/browse use case via 'Newest first' but never states when to use this versus list_scenes or search_help, nor any prerequisites. Only the schema's 'Leave empty to list recent content' hints at the browse mode, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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