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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior the schema cannot express: it returns passages rather than whole documents, and returns empty when no sources are connected — a real failure mode an agent must anticipate. It does not describe ranking or result ordering, which keeps it from 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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: scope, positive use case, negative exclusion plus alternative, and empty-state behavior. The scope constraint is front-loaded and capitalized, so the most important caveat is read first.

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 no output schema, this covers everything the agent needs: what corpus is searched, what a result is, when not to call it, and what an empty response means. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (query, limit with default 10) are already documented there. The description adds no query syntax, phrasing advice, or meaning for limit beyond what the schema states, so 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?

Specific verb+resource ("searches documents synced from connected sources") with an explicit scope limiter ("ONLY") and a stated return type ("matching passages"). It names concrete source systems (Notion pages, Google Drive files), which no sibling tool covers, so the agent can distinguish it from get_brand_context immediately.

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 a positive trigger with examples (spec, meeting notes, policy), an explicit negative exclusion ("Do NOT use for brand voice, tone, identity or saved facts"), and names the correct alternative (get_brand_context). That is the full when/when-not/alternative triple.

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