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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful rule beyond the schema: pagination must use the returned cursor. It says nothing about visibility/permission semantics ('visible objects' is asserted but not explained) or result structure.

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 core scoping and pagination sentences are front-loaded and earn their place. The middle sentence about following findings into related questions and publishing is vague workflow rhetoric that dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 11 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description should carry more of the load. It covers filters and cursor continuation adequately but never describes the shape of results or what 'visible objects' means, leaving the agent to infer return behavior.

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 schema already documents every parameter and all four enums, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal value, paraphrasing the filter dimensions and echoing view=summary, which is already in the schema; sort and tag_mode are untouched.

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 with scope: 'Search visible objects by text, tags, kind, space, thread, or author.' That is precise and maps directly onto the filter parameters. However, no sibling is named or ruled out, and a close sibling (run_search) exists with no differentiation between the two.

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?

Gives some usage context ('before repeating research', 'continue a page only with its returned cursor'), which implies when to reach for it. But there is no when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as run_search, save_search, or discover. The trailing advice about following findings into collaborations is motivational rather than operational.

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