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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — visibility is conditioned on being signed in and is limited to own-device plus public cells — but the truncated sentence means the disclosure stops short of what the tool actually returns.

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 terminates mid-sentence ("...the public cells of the"), leaving the primary scope clause unresolved. What text exists is front-loaded, but the truncation destroys the structure rather than merely being verbose.

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 four-parameter, zero-coverage search tool with no output schema, the description should carry the full burden of explaining what is matched, what is returned, and how paging works. Instead it delivers one incomplete scope sentence, leaving the discovery semantics undocumented.

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 0% across four parameters (q, cell, limit, offset) and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. An agent must guess whether q is a free-text query, whether cell scopes to a single cell id, and what the pagination units are.

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 identifies the resource and its visibility scope ("cells you can reach: those on your own devices ... and the public cells"), but never supplies the verb — it never says this finds, lists, or searches anything. The sentence is also cut off mid-thought, so an agent cannot tell whether this is a search over cells or a capability listing, nor how it differs from the sibling my_cells.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative such as my_cells, cell_call, or directory_search. The only implicit signal is the scope phrase "cells you can reach," which an agent must interpret on its own.

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