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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description adds genuine context beyond that: what fields come back, that coverage spans architecture and per-connector guides, and that ids are the handoff key to fetch. It omits result-count limits or pagination, which keeps it 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return shape before the usage rule and the follow-up handoff. The connector/feature list is dense but directly aids query formulation, so every clause 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?

The tool has one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, so the description need not explain returns or safety. Given that low complexity, purpose, entry point, and next step are all present and nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema's own query description already supplies five concrete examples plus a 16000 max length. The tool description adds only the general framing that queries can span connectors and features, which is marginal value over structured data. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("Search the full Mintive documentation") and immediately names the return shape (ids, titles, URLs). It also distinguishes itself from the fetch sibling by explaining that the ids it returns feed that tool, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

"Use this first for any Mintive question" is an explicit precedence rule over the siblings, and the enumerated topic areas (setup, capabilities, security, connectors, SCIM, SIEM) define the triggering scope. The follow-up step ("pass a result id to the fetch tool to read the page") gives the agent the exact routing sequence to the alternative.

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