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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable workflow behavior: server auto-resolves project context from the saved project, when to retry with project setup, and that user_intent is analytics-only and does not affect results. It doesn't describe pagination/return semantics in depth, but the output schema covers that, and the behavioral notes exceed what annotations provide.

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 description is longer than typical but every section earns its place: purpose, workflow, date filtering, and per-argument notes. Markdown structure (WORKFLOW, Date filtering, Args) makes it scannable. Slightly verbose with the Args section duplicating some schema field names, but the behavioral notes justify the length.

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?

This is a complex tool (9 params, nested scope object with pano list, pagination via cursor, cross-tool workflow). The description addresses the multi-step fallback workflow, project context resolution, and date handling comprehensively. The output schema covers the return structure. Minor gap: the cursor pagination interaction could be spelled out more explicitly, but overall completeness is strong for the complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 9 parameters, and it does: every param gets an inline explanation (query='keywords describing what to find', team_domain/facility_key='omit by default, override current project', user_intent='REQUIRED...does not affect results', limit='default 10', date params='YYYY-MM-DD, omit if no date context', scope='previous result identity', cursor='next page'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 has a very specific verb+resource ('Search 360° captures by visual content analysis') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming what it does NOT do (capture counts/statistics → ask-about-project-data). It enumerates the exact content types searched (safety hazards, quality issues, work types, objects, equipment, materials, conditions).

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?

Provides an explicit WORKFLOW section detailing default usage (query only), when to override with team_domain/facility_key, when to run list-my-projects → set-focus-project (only when current project is missing), and precise date-filtering guidance (only when user mentions dates, YYYY-MM-DD format). The exclusion of the stats use case with a named alternative is exemplary.

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