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

The description mentions that it returns up to `limit` matching files, which is basic output behavior. It relies on the readOnlyHint annotation for read-only status and does not explicitly state that it does not modify files, but the annotation covers that.

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 description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage syntax and an example. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no filler.

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 search tool with two parameters, the description covers the query syntax, the limit behavior, and the return type. It does not mention error handling, sorting, or pagination beyond the limit, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The schema only describes the `query` parameter, but the description adds meaning to `limit` by explaining it controls the maximum number of returned files. It also enriches `query` with a concrete example, going beyond the schema's brief description.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching Octopus files by filename, tag, or folder. It also provides concrete filter syntax, distinguishing it from sibling tools like octopus_list or octopus_search_meta.

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?

It gives specific usage instructions with a query example and explains the `tag:` and `in:/path/` qualifiers. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer this over octopus_list, though the search intent is implicit.

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