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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required permission scopes, the fact that own-scope access silently narrows results to the actor's work orders, and the meaning of the status values returned. It does not mention result limits or pagination, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then permissions and status semantics. The status-value explanation (Completed/Cancelled/Unknown) is slightly tangential to a search tool but earns its place by clarifying returned data in the absence of an output schema.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (public GUIDs, numeric status, statusName) and explaining status values. Permissions and scope behavior are covered. Missing only result-size or ordering behavior, which an agent would want for a search tool.

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 already documents partial, case-insensitive matching against title and description. The description restates the same semantics ('partial search term', 'titles and descriptions') without adding format, length, or escaping guidance, 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 and resource ('Searches work-order titles and descriptions') plus scope ('in the authorized company using a partial search term'), which is enough to distinguish it from a plain list operation. It does not explicitly name the sibling uteamup_workorder_list as the non-search alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 useful context on permissions (WorkOrder.View vs WorkOrder.View.Own) and the consequence of own-scope access, which helps an agent predict results. However, it never states when to prefer this over uteamup_workorder_list or what to do when the search term is too broad, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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