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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the access scope (owned/invited/team-shared, not public links), the search semantics (trigram), and the return fields (id, title, snippet, share URL, similarity). It does not describe error behavior or result ordering by rank, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, zero filler. The scope constraint is front-loaded and the usage hint is placed last, which is exactly the right ordering for an agent scanning for intent then routing.

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 three-parameter search with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and defining the visibility scope. Together with the fully-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 include_html are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., it never mentions include_html or the limit cap), so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 ('Trigram text search over reports') and immediately scopes it to reports the caller owns, was invited to, or team-shares, explicitly excluding public share links. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_reports and get_report.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use directive ('Use before drafting a new report to find prior work') and the scope exclusion clarifies when it won't find things. It does not name the alternative sibling (list_reports) for enumerating without a query, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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