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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are pointers (document IDs plus source URLs) rather than full documents, which tells the agent to expect to chain into fetch. It doesn't disclose ranking, result limits, or query matching behavior.

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, zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the fetch hand-off is a compact trailing clause. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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?

With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call the tool: corpus scope, return shape, and the follow-up tool. The remaining gap is query formulation guidance, which matters given the zero-coverage parameter.

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?

The single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden, and it only implies free-text search without stating whether it accepts keywords, phrases, or natural-language questions. The 300-character cap and the dual corpus (specs vs. project facts) make query strategy non-obvious, and that gap is unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and enumerates the resource types covered — forms, tables, onboarding, dashboards, and public facts about specific projects — and names what the tool returns (document IDs and source URLs). An agent can immediately tell this is a discovery tool over a bounded corpus rather than a content-retrieval tool.

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 explicitly routes the agent to the 'fetch' sibling for complete content, which is the key when-to-use pivot for a search tool. It does not mention the other sibling, validate_design_spec, or state when not to search, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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