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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the scope of the search. It does not describe what the search matches, what the response looks like, whether it is read-only, or any limits or errors.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and scannable, though it sacrifices valuable behavioral detail for brevity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It fails to explain return values, search behavior, or result ordering and pagination, making it only minimally useful for an agent deciding how to use the tool.

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 schema covers only 50% of parameters with descriptions (query), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The limit parameter is left to its schema constraints, and there is no compensation for the missing semantics in the description.

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 action ('search') and a clear resource scope ('all files of current user'). This distinguishes it from listing tools like list_files, though it does not explicitly clarify whether the search covers file content or only metadata.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files or get_folder_tree. The description only implies the obvious case of needing to search, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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