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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive, so the description wisely spends its words elsewhere: the trash exclusion ('Reports in Deleted are not searched') and the truncation semantics with a remediation hint ('a narrower query shows the rest'). Those are real behaviors an agent could not infer. It stops short of stating result limits, ordering, or matching rules (case/prefix), so it is not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return shape, then the edge case. Every clause carries information: what is searched, what comes back, and the one exclusion.

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, the description correctly compensates by naming the result fields ({id,title,url}), the totalMatches count, and the truncated flag. For a one-parameter search tool this is close to sufficient; only result-count limits and match rules are left implicit.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Free-text query matched against report and client names.' The description's 'by name' reiterates that without adding syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus the exact resources searched (reports and clients) and the matching field (name), which separates it from list_reports, list_clients and fetch. An agent can tell from the first sentence whether this is the right lookup tool.

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 phrase 'for use with fetch' implies the intended two-step workflow (search to get an id/url, then fetch), which is useful routing. But it never explicitly contrasts with list_reports or list_clients, nor states the condition that should select this tool over those.

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