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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: 'Returns observations only, never a claim about your role, and states what it is based on so you can tell a real picture from a thin one.' This communicates read-only, evidence-based behavior and even warns the agent about how to judge the reliability of what it receives.

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?

Four sentences, each adding a distinct point: scope, timing, behavior, and relationship to a sibling tool. Slightly verbose phrasing like 'so you can tell a real picture from a thin one' makes it less than maximally tight, but there is no wasted 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?

For a simple two-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call, what it returns, and how to judge the result. It does not specify exact output formatting or ordering, but the agent has enough context to call it and interpret its role.

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 the schema already documents the two optional parameters. The description adds context around what 'recent' refers to but does not add new parameter-level meaning, landing at the baseline 3.

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 opens with a concrete picture of the tool's resource — 'documents you edited or opened, and which folders moved' — and later clarifies that it 'returns observations only.' It explicitly contrasts itself with search_org_knowledge, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger and purpose: 'Worth one call at the start of a session once you know what the user wants, to learn where in the store to look before you search.' It also states a clear boundary: 'A hint for aiming search_org_knowledge — not a substitute for it.'

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