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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it states 'no GitLab API call' (a specific limitation not in the annotations) and describes what the tool returns ('schemas, hints, destructive flags, and execute examples'). This gives the agent a concrete understanding of the tool's behavior and output without contradicting any annotation.

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—three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the core function and read-only nature, the second gives the use case trigger, and the third lists return content. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundant details.

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 tool's simplicity (read-only, no API call, no side effects) and the presence of an output schema that covers return structure, the description fully equips an agent: it knows what the tool does, when to invoke it, and what to expect back. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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% and each parameter is already well-documented in the input schema, including examples for query. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it just restates the query pattern. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the tool's action (search) and resource (local GitLab action catalog), and explicitly notes it is read-only and makes no API call. It distinguishes itself from the sibling gitlab_execute_action by implying this tool is for lookup when the action ID or params are unclear, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the action ID or params are unclear.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, and implicitly that if you have the action ID you would use the execute sibling instead. It stops short of naming the sibling or giving an explicit 'when not to use' rule, but the guidance is clear enough for most cases.

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