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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the IDs are registry-backed rather than arbitrary action names, and the mandatory schema-inspection step before execution. It does not discuss pagination or result-ordering behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the workflow/constraint sentences each carry distinct operational value. Slightly dense with several imperative lines, but nothing is redundant with the 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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be enumerated, yet the description still names the key returned fields (operation_id, description, app metadata). Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry detailed in-schema descriptions (limit default, query phrasing guidance). The description adds no parameter information of its own, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Search for available Markifact operations') plus a scoping condition ('that can be executed by the authenticated user'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_operation_inputs and run_operation.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow chain (find_operations → get_operation_inputs → run_operation/run_write_operation), states the selection rule for read vs write ('when requires_approval: true'), and forbids calling run tools without first inspecting the schema. It also tells the agent how to recover when a query misses.

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