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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the data source semantics — it searches uncommitted changes and falls back from a running live preview to the committed repository — which materially affects result trust and is not in any structured field.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the capability statement is front-loaded ahead of the source-resolution caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. What remains distinctly the description's job — which corpus is searched and how staleness is handled — is answered directly.

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 query, project_id, whole_word, case_sensitive, and max_results all carry their own documentation and defaults. The description adds no extra meaning about matching rules or limit behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search text in a project") plus a distinguishing scope note about uncommitted changes. An agent can tell this apart from projects_files_read or projects_files_list by the text-search framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when to use it (finding text across a project rather than reading a known file), but never states when to prefer projects_files_read or projects_files_list instead, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the project ownership implied by the schema.

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