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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is charged per search, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the search is read-only, whether it writes or modifies anything, what the return shape is, or any rate limits or side effects.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core function and the two search modes are front-loaded, and the cost note is a useful addition. It earns its place, though it could arguably add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains the two search modes and the cost, but it does not describe the return format, pagination, or how the 'reader' parameter relates to the search, which an agent would need to know to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'text' and 'embedding' are two search modes, which maps to two of the five parameters. However, it does not clarify the roles of 'reader', 'spaceId', or 'limit' beyond what their names imply, leaving a partial 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('a space') and distinguishes two search modes: by meaning (embedding) or by text. It is clear enough to differentiate from the generic 'search' sibling, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast with it.

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 usage context: it searches a space by meaning or text, and notes it is 'Charged per search,' which hints at cost considerations. However, it does not state when to prefer this over the generic 'search' or 'search_agents' tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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