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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches text files rather than metadata, covers every accessible project where the assistant is enabled, and returns files with id, title, and link. It does not disclose matching rules, pagination, or result limits.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the search scope and then explains the result shape. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the definition covers the essential scope and return shape. It leaves some minor operational details unstated, such as result limits or matching behavior, but is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 single query parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description confirms that the query searches text-file contents, but adds little beyond the schema's 'Words to find' explanation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it searches text files across Manulyx projects and returns matching files. The scope ('every Manulyx project you can open') is clear, though it does not explicitly state how this differs from project-scoped or all-project search 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 description implies when this tool is appropriate by saying it searches across every accessible project, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it.

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