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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds that results carry ids usable with fetch, but says nothing about ranking, match type, truncation, or what an empty result means; with annotations carrying the rest, a 3 is appropriate.

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; the core capability comes first and the id/fetch handoff is the second beat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of results (matching records with ids) and the follow-up step. It leaves minor gaps around result ranking and the empty-result case, but for a simple three-parameter read tool it is nearly complete.

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 limit, query, and project_id are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or scoping nuance beyond what the schema already says, 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 (find) plus the exact resource set (projects, active Actions, prompts) and the condition (when you do not know where a record is). It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'fetch' by explaining the id handoff, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('when you do not know where a record is') and names the alternative path ('pass one to fetch for the full record'), which is effectively a when-to-use-this vs. when-to-use-fetch rule. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that it should not be used when the id is already known or that it is not a substitute for the read_* analytic tools.

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