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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful scope detail ('public documents') and the tag-based relationship, which lets the agent know that results are limited to public docs and shared tags. It does not disclose output formatting, but an output schema exists.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core operation and scope; every word earns its place. No unnecessary detail or repetition of annotations or schema.

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 simple two-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. It could benefit from explicit guidance around when to prefer it over search_documents, but that is a minor gap given the available structured information.

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 describes limit (default/max) but not path. The description partially fills this gap by clarifying that path is a 'canonical path' and that relation is via 'shared tags', adding meaning to the path parameter. It does not elaborate on limit, but that is already in the schema.

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 ('Find'), a resource ('public documents'), and the linking mechanism ('shared tags'), which clearly differentiates from listing, reading, or searching. The notion of 'related' is specific, though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly.

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?

No explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over search_documents or list_documents. The description implies a scenario (having a canonical path) but provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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