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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that results carry connected-account information, but says nothing about pagination behavior, the 50-item cap, or what happens when zero actions match — notable given there is no output schema.

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, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the follow-up pointer placed after it. Every clause carries information.

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 four-parameter, all-optional read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers what is searched, what accompanies results, and where to go for per-action detail. The only meaningful gap is pagination/empty-result behavior, which the cursor schema partially implies.

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%, so each of the four parameters (app, limit, query, cursor) is already documented in the schema, including defaults and pagination semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it doesn't clarify query matching behavior or how app omission broadens the search.

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 ("Search the actions Fetch Hive can perform in an app") and grounds it with a concrete example ("sending a Slack message"), plus a scope note that results include connected accounts. This distinguishes it from the sibling search_* tools, which target agents, docs, prompts, templates and workflows rather than app actions.

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 routes the agent to get_action_schema for a single action's inputs, which is useful next-step guidance, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g., connect_app needed first). Usage is only implied by the purpose.

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