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), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the cross-kind scope and, importantly, that the return payload contains the slug/id needed by downstream tools, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements and result ranking/ordering.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then the discriminating when-to-use with examples, then the return contract. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose, scope, when-to-use and return shape, which is adequate for a 3-parameter read tool with no output schema. Minor gaps remain around result ordering/relevance and whether authentication is required, but nothing an agent needs to call 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 the schema already documents query, kinds and limit fully. The description's list of resource kinds loosely mirrors the `kinds` enum but adds no format guidance or syntax (e.g. word limits) beyond what the schema states.

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 enumerates the resource types covered (events, teams, projects, people, articles). It also frames itself distinctly from the many *_list and *_get siblings as the identifier-resolution entry point that returns the slug/id other tools need.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you do not yet know the identifier') with two concrete example queries, and implies the follow-up workflow ('the slug or id you need for every other tool'). It stops short of naming the specific alternatives (e.g. event_list, team_list) it should be chosen over when an ID is already known.

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