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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: relevance ranking with recency boost, result shape including type/uid/url/snippets, action-ready uid mappings to other tools, and total_count semantics. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 information-dense but well-ordered: scope first, then usage guidance, then result semantics, then optional parameters and pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 no output schema present, the description compensates by enumerating what each result carries and how the uid can be used with specific tools. Combined with the annotations and sibling differentiation, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that project_id and assigned_to_me are optional scoping filters, and by connecting page/per_page to total_count as the full match count, going slightly beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'global full-text search (OpenSearch)' across named entity types and fields. It also explicitly differentiates itself from search_cards, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

It gives an explicit usage instruction with a concrete example ('find anything by content') and an exclusion condition: use search_cards only for title-substring lookups inside one project. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over its sibling.

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