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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the Spotlight/mdfind implementation note and, more importantly, the refusal to search credential/identity locations. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact sentences lead with the core action and scope, then add the scoping flag and the security caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is almost complete; the only notable omission is a caveat that Spotlight indexing may affect freshness or hidden-file coverage. Nothing needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents query, path, and limit. The description's path= mention adds a usage hint but is redundant; it also says 'by name' while the schema says 'filename or content,' adding slight ambiguity.

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 ('searches'), a concrete resource ('files by name anywhere on this Mac'), and a distinctive mechanism (mdfind/Spotlight), making it easy to tell apart from cloud-storage and note/message search siblings.

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 description gives a clear local-search context and instructs how to scope with path=, but it never names an alternative (e.g., file_search or finder_list) or says when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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