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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses the return shape (matching records with ids) and the intended handoff to fetch, though it omits pagination/limit behavior.

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, zero waste, with the primary purpose and scope front-loaded and the follow-up action trailing. Nothing needs trimming.

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 simple search tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: purpose, scope, return shape, and next step are all present. The main gap is undocumented parameter semantics for limit and project_id.

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% for three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. "By text" loosely implies the query parameter, but limit and project_id (project scoping) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving important semantics unstated.

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) and enumerates the exact resources it searches (projects, active Actions, prompts), scoped by text. It also names the follow-up sibling (fetch) for full records, letting an agent place it precisely among the many read_* tools.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ("when you do not know where a record is") and points to the follow-up tool (fetch) for the complete record. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or contrast with the read_* siblings, so it is clear context without full routing.

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