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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not the sole carrier of safety context. It adds genuine behavior beyond that: result ordering (most recently created first), a hard result cap, and the remediation advice to narrow the query. It stops short of describing auth requirements or pagination, which keeps it out of the top score.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then uses scannable bullets for usage and a short paragraph for return behavior. Slightly redundant between the opening line and the second bullet, but there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still supplies the ordering and cap semantics that matter for interpreting results. For a two-parameter read-only search, 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%, with both query (case-insensitive, min 3 chars, max 255) and limit (default/max 25) fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'matched against import names' at a high level, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema – the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 resource (account's imports) with the matching field (by name). It also distinguishes itself from list-documents by explaining the UUID hand-off, so an agent can tell the two apart without reading schemas.

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?

Explicit 'use this tool when' bullets name the two concrete triggering scenarios, including the downstream chaining case (getting an import UUID to filter list-documents). When-to-use is unambiguous.

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