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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: results are externally sourced and every result carries a source URL that should be cited, which affects how the agent should present output. It omits anything about result count limits or ranking, keeping it below 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?

Three sentences, zero padding, and the scope statement is front-loaded before the usage trigger and the citation instruction. Each sentence conveys a distinct, actionable fact.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by telling the agent results include source URLs to cite. For a two-parameter read-only search tool that is nearly complete; a brief note on result shape or relevance ranking would close the remaining gap.

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%, including an example-driven description of 'q' and the 1-10 range on 'limit', so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, query-format, or pagination guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 (search) and resource (Composio's official documentation at docs.composio.dev) and enumerates the content domains it covers: scopes, authentication, actions, limits, provider setup. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like search_integrations or search_claims, which target different corpora.

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 an explicit trigger ('when someone asks how to use or set up a connection') and names the alternative to avoid ('answering from memory'). It does not explicitly route against the closest sibling, search_integrations, leaving that inference to the agent, so it stops short of a 5.

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