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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: results are labeled by ownership, delivery channel, availability, and plan scope, and it discloses what is intentionally withheld. It doesn't mention limits on result size beyond cursor behavior, which would round it out.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then filters/pagination, then exclusions. The 'Private draft:' prefix and the AI-ish 'ToolYour-owned' phrasing waste a little space and could confuse an agent about whether the tool is usable.

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?

With 9 params, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to decide suitability and paginate safely. Gaps remain around `projectId` scope, when `requestable` vs `granted` diverge in practice, and empty-result behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 44%, so the description should carry more than it does. It adds meaning for `access` (mode-scoped pagination) and `cursor` (stable, access-scoped) but leaves `projectId`, `limit`, `query`, and `tag` with no added semantics. Its category gloss merely restates the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource with its scope: searching operation *metadata* across owned, granted, free, and requestable access. It carves out a distinct niche against siblings like get_provider_operation and get_tool_schema by explicitly excluding schemas, credentials, provider responses, and invocation. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative outright, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 concrete guidance on how to paginate ('use one access mode with nextCursor') and what to filter by (provider, risk, tag, category). The 'does not expose schemas... does not invoke APIs' lines imply an agent should route to get_tool_schema or invoke_tool instead, but no tool is named. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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