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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It does usefully disclose the return shape (id, group and a one-line description), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking behavior, or whether the search is fuzzy, so an agent cannot predict result volume.

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 purpose, then return shape, then the handoff instruction. Nothing is redundant.

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 five-parameter, all-optional search tool with full schema coverage, the definition supplies purpose, return fields, and the follow-up call, which is most of what is needed. The absence of paging/ranking information is the only meaningful gap, and there are no annotations to compensate.

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 every parameter, including the mode enum and the group list, is already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose phrase about searching by 'role and description', which does not map cleanly to any parameter (no role parameter exists) and could mildly confuse.

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 names a specific verb (Find) and resource (sections), and states the axes it searches on (role and description). It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling get_sections by explaining that this tool produces ids that get_sections consumes. It is not a formalism, but it is enough for an agent to tell the two apart.

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 an explicit downstream workflow ('Use the ids with get_sections') and implies discovery-style usage. It does not state when-not to use it or how it differs from list_themes/get_design, but the search-then-fetch relationship with its main sibling is clear.

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