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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool 'returns the matching folder(s) with match_type indicator' and notes 'partial match' for name queries, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, errors, or permissions, which would be expected for a search tool without annotation coverage.

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 core description is a single clear sentence, followed by three bulleted examples that are front-loaded and easy to scan. Each sentence has a purpose, and there is no fluff. The structure makes it efficient for the agent to parse and apply.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: purpose, query types, examples, and return information (match_type). It does not mention pagination or error conditions, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. The only notable gap is not referencing sibling alternatives for routing, which is a minor completeness issue.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for each type and clarifying that 'name' does partial matching. This goes beyond the schema's basic enum and value descriptions, helping the agent understand proper parameter combinations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('folder'), and specifies three distinct search modes (path, git URL, name) with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_blocks and search_pages, and even from find_folder_by_path by covering multiple types.

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?

The description provides examples for each query type, which implicitly guides usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_folder_by_path or get_folder. No exclusion criteria or 'use this instead when...' guidance is given, so the agent must infer the context from sibling names.

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