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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real value: the server binds the search to the authenticated account and accepts no clientId/account identifier, only X1-authored documentUrl links should be used, and an empty result means no matching metadata rather than a missing notice. That is substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 core action, then progressively adds scoping, routing, and result-handling rules. It is longer than most definitions but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational guidance; only the closing sentence about the governed metadata audit and document authority feels like boilerplate.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (X1-authored documentUrl links, use only those) and the meaning of an empty result. Combined with the account-binding rule and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so query, category, and dateFrom are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'filename, title, and tags' as searchable facets is only loosely mapped onto the actual parameters (there is no tag parameter), so it adds flavor but little precision.

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 (Search) and resource (your own X1 Vault) plus the searchable facets (filename, title, category, tags) and the pre-indexing scope. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings search_documents and search_my_document_contents by naming the vault ownership boundary.

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 says when to use it (the connected person searching their own Vault, even if they hold an admin or professional role) and routes alternatives: search_documents for a client's Vault, search_my_document_contents for cited body passages. Exclusions and alternatives are stated, not implied.

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