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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key prerequisite (requires a YAMLTools API key) and clarifies the return content (matches with their folder). The read-only nature is implied by 'search' but not explicitly stated, which is a minor gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Search') and includes only essential details: scope, search field, return value, and authentication requirement. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a required credential. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but these are not critical for correct invocation. A minor gap is the lack of explicit read-only assurance, but the search semantics make it obvious.

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%—the schema already defines query as 'Text to match in the diagram title'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating 'by title text', so it does not enhance the structured field info. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches saved diagrams by title text, specifying the resource (saved diagrams), scope (authenticated user's), and search criterion. It also notes the return value (matches with their folder), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_diagrams or get_diagram.

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?

The description explicitly indicates this tool is for searching diagrams by title, implying it should be used when a title-based lookup is needed. It does not explicitly compare with list_diagrams or mention exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over siblings.

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