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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds pagination and filter-based retrieval, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe return format, default page size, status value semantics, or authentication/routing behavior beyond what annotations and schema 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a single usage sentence. Nothing is repeated or wasted, and the most important scoping information appears first.

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?

Given rich annotations and 100% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose, primary use case, and pagination. It omits return value shape and status enum semantics, but with no output schema and a comprehensive input schema, the definition is largely complete for invocation.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions filtering by name and status and pagination, but adds no syntax, default values, or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb (search/list) and resource (workspace documents) and names the filters (name, status) and pagination. It does not explicitly distinguish this from get_document or show_document, though the phrase 'before inspecting' hints at the relationship. Clear but missing explicit sibling routing.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use it to find a document the user names before inspecting or following up. This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not state when not to use it (e.g., when a document ID is already known, use get_document) or name alternatives explicitly.

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