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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it explains the result is a set of matching forms 'with their fields, shown as a fillable form the user can complete right here to generate a document' — disclosing the output shape and the follow-on interaction. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each clause carries information (library, examples, return format, when-to-use). It is slightly verbose with three sequential purposes, but nothing is wasted padding.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, examples, output format, and invocation context; only the limit/pagination behavior is unaddressed, which the schema handles.

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 both query and limit are already documented in the schema, and the query examples in the description duplicate what the schema already provides. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('library of ready-made forms') with concrete examples, and the title confirms it is a document generator finder. An agent can distinguish it from create_document, create_shared_form, and submit_form without opening any schema.

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?

'Use when the user wants to create a specific kind of document or fill out a form' gives clear positive context for invocation. It does not name an alternative (e.g., blank create_document) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the explicit routing that a 5 requires.

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