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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: an account-bound computer:write OAuth requirement and prompted local owner approval, plus the bounded-tree constraint. It says nothing about result caps, ordering, or what an empty match looks like, which is why it lands at a 3 rather than higher.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding: scope first, sibling differentiation second, auth caveat last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and the schema fully documented, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical facts: scope boundary, non-session behavior, and auth/approval prerequisites. It is slightly thin on the return payload for a search tool with no output schema, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (including the enum-restricted area and optional subpath) are already documented in the schema with their constraints. The description adds no syntax, matching rules, or subpath semantics beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a precisely bounded resource (a managed Downloads/Desktop/Documents/Pictures/Music tree), and explicitly separates itself from exza_start_commander_search. The only wrinkle is that it says 'by filename' while the schema's query allows 'name or content' search, leaving a small ambiguity about whether content matching is supported.

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?

Provides a clear comparative context: unlike exza_start_commander_search, no paginated search session is created, implying this is the lightweight one-shot option. It does not spell out an explicit 'use this when / use that instead when' rule, so the agent must infer the choice from the session-creation difference.

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