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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope by saying only 'accessible' documents are searched and that matching covers name and summary, but it does not mention result ordering, matching behavior, limits, or other operational traits beyond what annotations cover.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes to identifying the operation, resource, scope, and search fields.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does and what the query targets. It could be stronger with alternatives or matching rules, but it is largely complete for this tool's 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 schema does not explain the single 'query' parameter. The description compensates partially by indicating that the query is matched against document names and summaries. It does not specify matching syntax, case sensitivity, or other query semantics, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search accessible Docmino documents.' It adds that search applies to name and summary, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_documents, get_document, or fetch, so it falls 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?

The word 'Search' and the fields 'name and summary' imply the tool's intended use for keyword lookup, rather than listing or fetching a specific document. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus list_documents, get_document, or fetch, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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