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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: plan availability, required permission, indexed source types, and ranked result structure with kind, snippet, and location. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but it substantially exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs scope, result shape, follow-up tool, plan, and permission into a compact block. Every clause carries useful information, and there is no 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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape by explaining ranked results with kind, snippet, and location. Combined with the annotations, permission requirement, plan restriction, and follow-up guidance, it gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool 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?

The query parameter is well documented in the schema with examples, and the description reinforces what content is searched, but the limit parameter has no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description. With 50% schema description coverage, this is adequate but leaves a clear gap around result-count control.

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 names a specific verb and resource, "Searches the workspace's internal knowledge base," and enumerates the indexed content types and result kinds. It also distinguishes the search action from the follow-up get_guide action, so an agent can tell what this tool does versus its sibling.

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 clearly explains that search results should be opened with get_guide for guides or steps, and it states the Pro/Team plan and demos:read permission requirements. It does not explicitly describe when not to use the tool or name another search alternative, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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