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 real value beyond that: the match is lexical (not semantic) and is scoped to labels and descriptions only, and it states the return shape (identifiers for fetch). It omits pagination/matching behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is solid.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and the return contract, with zero redundant or filler text.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still supplies the key hand-off fact (identifiers go to fetch). The remaining gap is the undocumented query/limit semantics, which matters for a search tool but is minor given the annotations and output schema.

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 50%: only 'type' and 'namespace' are annotated, while 'query' and 'limit' carry only type constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning — it never explains query syntax (exact vs. prefix vs. multi-term), limit defaults, or how type/namespace constrain results — so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'lexical search over the labels and descriptions of the public objects' — and notes it returns identifiers for fetch. It is clearly distinct from get_object/fetch (which retrieve by identifier) and list_objects (which enumerates), though it never names those siblings as alternatives.

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 phrase 'Returns identifiers to pass to fetch' implies the intended workflow (search then fetch), which is useful implied usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus list_objects or get_object, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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