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

The annotation already marks the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail about search semantics and states that the result includes ids and live URLs, going beyond the annotation.

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 first sentence is concise, but the second sentence contains the confusing 'not meaning: search for a word...' clause, which muddies the structure and could be clearer.

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?

The description states scope (caller's organization), matching behavior, and return contents (ids and live URLs). With no output schema, it could be more explicit about result shape, but it provides enough context for a search operation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond repeating the general search 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?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Find apps in the caller's organization by text.' It also specifies matching behavior (substrings of name/slug, whole words on the live page) and return type (ids and live URLs), but the awkward phrase 'not meaning...' introduces some confusion.

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?

Usage is implied: it is a text search over apps in the caller's organization, so an agent would use it when searching by text rather than known app IDs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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