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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotent=true), the description discloses the partial-application semantics: in-flight answers finish and are charged, running site scans or content audits finish, tracked questions/answers/audits/settings persist, and the call costs no Energy. It also reports the return shape. Minor gap: nothing on what happens if checks are already paused, though idempotentHint covers that.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition ('Stop spending Energy'), followed by what happens, what persists, and how to reverse. Dense but every clause carries information; the multiple 'or'/'and' clauses make it slightly harder to scan than a tighter two-sentence version would be.

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?

Covers the mutation's scope, side effects, cost implications, persistence guarantees, reversal path, and access restriction — all the things an agent needs before invoking a state-changing tool. Return values are described even though an output schema exists, which is redundant but harmless.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage, with the teammate-workspace semantics and omission behavior already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; its permission sentence is an auth constraint rather than a parameter clarification. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('pause the weekly or daily checks and cancel answers that haven't been asked yet') and names the outcome (stop spending Energy). It is clearly distinguishable from run_ai_search_check and update_ai_search_settings, which are named as the ways to resume.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the condition that selects them: re-enable via update_ai_search_settings with frequency weekly or daily, or trigger a one-off via run_ai_search_check. It also states an eligibility constraint ('only for a connection created by a current owner or admin'), removing guesswork about auth.

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