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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond them by scoping results to the signed-in user's own content (not other people's) and by warning that it must not be used as reconnaissance for a bulk or irreversible action. It doesn't discuss result volume or ranking, but the output schema carries the return shape.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: what it does, when to use it, when not to. The positive trigger is front-loaded and the exclusions follow in a single compact clause.

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 a read-only annotation profile, an output schema covering return values, full parameter coverage in the schema, and explicit usage boundaries, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly. No gaps remain for a four-parameter search 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (type, query, project, workspace) are already documented in the schema, including the allowed type values. The description adds no syntax, format, or combination guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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) plus the exact resource and scope: the signed-in user's own artifacts, with the content types enumerated (documents, slides, sheets, media, code). This cleanly separates it from siblings like search_notes, search_marketplace, discover_search, and get_artifact, so an agent can pick it without opening another 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?

Explicitly states the one triggering condition (user is explicitly looking for their existing content) and then names three concrete when-not cases: probing unsupported actions, finding another person's content, and using it as a first step toward a bulk/irreversible action. Nothing is left to inference.

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