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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: what is returned (matching queries/dashboards with ids and view links) and how the id is meant to be consumed downstream.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return contents and the follow-up routing. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 correctly compensates by describing the return shape (ids and view links) and the next-step tools. For a two-parameter read-only search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (query, databaseId) are already fully documented, including the pointer to draxlr_list_databases for obtaining the id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 (search) and a specific resource scope (saved queries and dashboards by name), which cleanly separates it from draxlr_list_saved_queries and draxlr_list_dashboards, which enumerate rather than search. An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a 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?

The description tells the agent what to do with results, explicitly naming draxlr_get_query, draxlr_run_saved_query and draxlr_get_dashboard as consumers of the returned id. It implies the usage condition (find by name) but does not state when to prefer this over the sibling list tools for discovery.

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