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

Annotations already cover read-only/safe/non-open-world, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine traits beyond them: search is literal title matching (not fuzzy), the limit ceiling of 50, and cursor semantics including expiry and restart. Return payload shape is not described, but that is minor here.

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 tight sentences, scope front-loaded, each segment carrying distinct information (scope, filters, limits, pagination). No filler.

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 zero-required-param list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, it covers scope, filters, limits, and pagination adequately. Enum values and the return shape are left to the schema, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it gives meaning to workspace_id, search (literal title), status, sort, limit (default 25, max 50), and cursor behavior. The only flaw is naming the cursor parameter 'nextCursor' while the schema calls it 'cursor', a small mismatch that could confuse an agent.

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 ('Find documents') plus scope: personal workspace by default, team via workspace_id. This separates it from get_document (single) and list_workspaces, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 clear usage context: it lists personal documents by default and team documents when workspace_id is supplied, and describes the pagination continuation path. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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