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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that search is across draft files and by describing the hit format as path:line:column with surrounding text.

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 description is three compact sentences with the core scope and result format front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 read-only annotations, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description supplies the key missing pieces: draft-file scope and result format. It could say more about result limits or pagination, but it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond clarifying that query may be text or regex and that context adds surrounding lines, both of which are largely covered by the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find text or a regex across draft files.' This clearly distinguishes it from listing or reading a single file, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as list_site_files or read_site_file.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of searching draft files and copying oldText from hits, which suggests it is for locating text before edits. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_site_files, read_site_file, or edit_site_files.

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