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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the return payload (ids, summaries, demo links), but says nothing about result caps, ranking, or empty-result behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the corpus scope and searchable fields are front-loaded, and the follow-up tool is stated last where it belongs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return shape (ids, summaries, demo links) and the natural next call. For a read-only search tool with six mostly optional params, this is close to complete; only the undocumented filter params keep it from a 5.

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?

At 50% schema description coverage, the description only loosely compensates: "by words (job, component, style, tag) and filters" hints at the query and filter params, but limit, style, and platform remain undocumented in both places. The semantics for half the parameters are left to inference.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (piece briefs), states corpus size (543), enumerates the searchable fields (job, component, style, tag), and describes what comes back (ids, summaries, demo links). It also names the sibling get_piece as the follow-up, so an agent can separate discovery from retrieval without opening schemas.

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?

"Then get_piece for the brief" gives an explicit two-step workflow and routes the agent to the correct retrieval tool. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over browse_library (browsing by category) or search_wada, and gives no exclusion conditions.

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