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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the exact metadata fields returned and how they can be consumed by other tools. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does omit details like pagination behavior, which the schema already covers.

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, with the primary action and return metadata front-loaded, followed by a concise usage rule. Each clause earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, return metadata, and when to use it, while the schema covers parameter meanings and defaults. The only notable gap is that 'by name' implies the name parameter is required, yet the schema marks it optional, leaving the behavior when name is omitted unspecified.

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 all five parameters. The description only reinforces the 'name' filter and does not add new parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline.

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 ('searches for files in Caspio's file system by name') and declares the output shape (metadata: path, name, size, content type, dates). It also separates itself from sibling tools by describing how results connect to get_file_metadata or download_file, making its role clear.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'find a file when the exact path isn't already known' and gives a concrete trigger (a File-type field value). It names the downstream alternatives (get_file_metadata, download_file), implying that when the path is known, those should be used instead.

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