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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: no token required, and that returned snippets are partial and must be followed with filesfm_get_doc. The main weakness is the ambiguous instruction "Search tasks/create_document for task integrations," which does not make clear whether that is a doc path or a separate search term.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the follow-up tool and caveats. Almost every clause carries information, though the trailing "Search tasks/create_document..." sentence is terse to the point of obscurity.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return-shape explanation is not required, and the description correctly discloses the snippet/full-document workflow. However, for a search tool with 0% parameter documentation, the absence of any guidance on query syntax or the limit cap leaves an agent to guess how to drive it well.

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 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. The `limit` cap of 20 and whether `query` supports keywords, phrases, or doc-path filters are left entirely unstated, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap even though the two parameter names are fairly self-evident.

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?

"Public documentation search" gives a specific verb+resource, and the scopes named (REST, DMS/DVS tasks, MCP, DAV) make it distinguishable from filesfm_search_files, which searches files rather than docs. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the contrast, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 routes the agent usefully: it names filesfm_get_doc as the follow-up for complete results and warns that snippets are not a full API contract, which tells the agent not to stop at search. It also points to tasks/create_document for task integrations. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over filesfm_search_files, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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