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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive substring or glob, that results can be truncated with a flag, that permission-denied subtrees are silently skipped, and that a zero result is not proof of absence. This is rich, actionable behavior information.

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 description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by crisp notes on matching and return structure, and concludes with two important caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity, and the description covers nearly all critical context: the return object fields, the meaning of truncated, and the silent permission-denied behavior. The only minor gap is that the exact shape of each element in 'matches' is not specified, but the tool generally returns paths, so this is inferable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a brief explanation of query matching (case-insensitive substring/glob) that is already in the schema, and mentions raising limit when truncated, but does not elaborate on maxDepth or other parameters beyond the schema.

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 description states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('directory subtree'), and a clear criterion ('files whose NAME matches'). It also distinguishes itself by noting it matches on name only, not contents, and identifies its counterpart ios_file_find, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives context that this is the Android counterpart to ios_file_find, which helps a cross-platform agent, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other sibling tools like device_file_list. The guidance about handling truncated results and permission-denied subtrees is more about interpreting outcomes than selecting the tool.

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