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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it returns only metadata (no full text), returns an empty data array on no match, and describes the paginated record fields and error behavior for missing/invalid input. This gives the agent a richer picture of what to expect.

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 compact and leads with the core purpose in the first sentence. Some slight redundancy exists ('Inputs: query, status' and later 'Required: query'), but each clause does add a distinct piece of information: result fields, no-full-text limitation, no-match behavior, and error handling. It is efficient without being terse.

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 5-parameter schema with full coverage and the presence of read-only annotations, the description supplies enough operational context: required input, optional filter, paginated response shape, no-match outcome, and error semantics. It does not explicitly explain how to use next_offset for continued pagination, but the schema already covers that. The main missing piece is alternative-tool guidance, which is more of a usage-guideline issue than a completeness 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%, so the schema already fully documents all five parameters with detailed semantics (literal case-sensitive match, exact status match, pagination offsets, and snapshot behavior). The description only restates 'query, status' and 'Required: query,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is therefore appropriate.

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 ('Find'), resource ('standard metadata'), and search criteria ('by title text, optionally filtered by its recorded status'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_standard_metadata, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 description conveys how to use the tool (query is required, status is optional) and touches on return behavior, but it offers no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance. The sibling list includes get_standard_metadata, yet the description never says 'use this for title search; use get_standard_metadata for exact identifier lookup.' Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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