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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: matching is typo-tolerant and matching folders are included in the result set. It does not describe result ordering or result shape, but limit/sort defaults are carried by the schema.

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 sentences, no filler: the matching criteria and filters come first, the usage guidance second. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the name alone.

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 six-parameter, entirely optional, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is matched, the filter dimensions and the fact that folders appear in results. Return shape and pagination behavior beyond limit are left unstated, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains every parameter, including the constraints on query, tags, folder, type, sort and limit. The description adds only one nuance beyond the schema — that query matching tolerates typos and can be omitted to filter only — so it sits at the baseline rather than above it.

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 and resource ('finds files') and enumerates what is matched: name, folder name or path, and tags, plus optional media-type/tag/folder filters. It is clearly distinguishable from a plain lister such as list_files, though it never names a sibling tool explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 a concrete when-to-use scenario with example queries ('the Dupont quote', 'my latest video') and a downstream intent ('before sharing its link'). It stops short of an explicit exclusion, e.g. 'to browse everything without a keyword, use list_files instead', so the agent must infer the boundary.

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