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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: results are restricted to the caller's own content and it must not be used to enumerate other users' data. It stops short of disclosing result-volume, ranking, or pagination behaviour, so it is good rather than rich.

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 sentence and the guardrails follow. The second sentence is long with three exclusion clauses, but every clause carries distinct routing value, so almost nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all four optional parameters are schema-documented with annotations covering the safety profile. The only unaddressed items are query semantics and result limits, which are minor for a read-only 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 type/query/project/workspace are already documented by the schema, and the description's content-type list merely echoes the type filter. No additional syntax, matching rules, or scoping semantics are added, so the baseline of 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 resource and scope ('signed-in user's own Xenition artifacts'), and enumerates the content types covered (documents, slides, sheets, media, code). It is clearly identifiable, though it never names or contrasts the near-neighbour siblings search_notes, discover_search, or get_artifact, so an agent must infer the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('ONLY when the user is explicitly looking for their existing content') and three concrete when-not conditions: capability probing, finding another person's content, and using search as a precursor to a bulk/irreversible action. This is unusually actionable routing guidance rather than vague intent.

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