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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: results are a partial, selected page rather than the full corpus, which warns the agent against treating the output as exhaustive. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite the 'after' cursor parameter, nor about rate limits or result ordering.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the scope caveat. Efficient, though the second sentence could have carried a bit more actionable detail at the same length.

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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the tool clearly paginates ('after' cursor) and the description never explains how to page through results or what a page contains. That is a meaningful gap for an agent that needs to iterate.

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%, so both parameters ('query' as search text, 'after' as pagination cursor) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or cursor semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (public accessible Morrowkin discussions), so an agent can immediately tell this is a query tool rather than a fetch-by-id tool like read_discussion. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to differentiate from, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus read_discussion, find_next_actions, or any other sibling. The note that results are 'a selected page, not the complete commons' is a coverage caveat, not routing guidance, so the agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point.

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