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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: per-request membership/product-access evaluation, what revocation blocks, and that responses are private/no-store. Most of this is family-wide auth boilerplate rather than search-specific behavior, but it does disclose real operational constraints.

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?

The purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but six of eight sentences are generic sharing/revocation/CSRF policy that applies to the whole API family rather than to invoking this search tool. The relevant information is buried and the word count is inflated by boilerplate.

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 read-only, idempotent search tool with full schema coverage and an explicit 'Do not construct cursors' note, the description covers purpose and access requirements adequately. It omits result-shape or hit-count/page-size expectations, though with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 q (3–160 chars, FULLTEXT token rules), base_id, organization_id and the after cursor are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no query syntax, no cursor semantics), 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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource (search the full text of a base) and the 'team' framing signals the team-access variant. However, it never differentiates itself from the closely named siblings search_base, public_search_base, or team_search_collection, so an agent must infer which search surface to pick from naming alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says when this team-scoped search should be chosen over search_base or team_search_collection, nor any prerequisite step such as obtaining organization_id via list_knowledge_teams before calling. Access-control prose describes policy but not selection criteria.

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