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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial real behavioral context: revocation blocks search, originals, Markdown, OKF and ZIP downloads even with an existing session or key; other owners' bases expose published files only; responses use private, no-store. These are genuine traits beyond the annotation set.

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 front-loaded in one good sentence, but the remaining five sentences are sharing/publishing/grant boilerplate ('Sharing does not publish a resource', 'Only the resource owner changes sharing', CSRF checks) that is about the sharing API rather than about calling a search endpoint. It is over-long relative to what it conveys about this tool.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally sufficient to call it, and the after cursor is covered by the schema. However it never describes what a result contains (document bodies, snippets, next-page link), so the return picture stays incomplete.

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 the schema already documents q, after, collection_id and organization_id (including the 'do not construct it' cursor warning). The description contributes nothing about parameters, which is the correct baseline 3 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search documents across bases in your collection.' It distinguishes the team variant implicitly via 'Team access uses current account membership, product access and resource sharing,' but it never names the sibling it differs from (search_collection, public_search_collection, team_search_base), so an agent must infer the routing.

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 instead of search_collection, public_search_collection or team_search_base — the closest is a generic note that team access uses current membership. The bulk of the text describes sharing/grant mechanics that do not help an agent decide whether to invoke this tool.

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