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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds real context beyond that: results are limited to 'readable' documents, are scoped to the 'active scope', and search is hybrid text-plus-semantic rather than plain substring matching.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the mode branches laid out in parallel clauses. Every clause earns its place by driving a distinct invocation path.

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 a full output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema description coverage, the description only needs to supply mode-selection intent, which it does. Minor gaps remain on pagination semantics, but those are adequately carried by the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by folder or tag UUID' vs 'with tag names' phrasing mirrors the type distinction the schema already encodes, adding little beyond it, and it says nothing about page/limit behavior.

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 and resource ('Find readable documents in the active scope') and immediately disambiguates its two operating modes. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as read_document or list_trash, so an agent must rely on names alone to route among them.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to pick each mode: list for 'paginated browsing by folder or tag UUID' and search for 'hybrid text and semantic retrieval with tag names'. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool versus read_document, but the internal when-to-use routing is clear.

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