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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — archived artifacts are included in results — but says nothing about match semantics (substring vs fuzzy), result ordering, or that the limit caps at 100.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the searchable-field enumeration is front-loaded ahead of the archived-scope caveat.

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 tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is result behavior — relevance ordering and pagination beyond the limit parameter — which the agent would have to discover empirically.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description earns extra credit by naming the fields actually searched (title, slug, summary, prompt, project, agent, kind), which tells the agent far more about what 'query' matches than the schema's generic 'Words to look for'.

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 (search) and resource (user's artifacts) and enumerates the searchable fields, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_artifacts, leaving the agent to infer the search-vs-enumerate split.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of a free-text query and the note that archived artifacts are included suggest this is the keyword-retrieval path, but nothing says when to prefer list_artifacts or how to reach a specific artifact via get_artifact.

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