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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the search is tenant-scoped, the workspace comes from OAuth and cannot be caller-supplied, and the operation persists the search by saving it. These details clarify side effects and authentication expectations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two focused sentences. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then clarifies an important authentication constraint. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is an action with external side effects, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. The description leaves significant gaps: what counts as a 'public Social Research search', how results or completion are communicated, whether the tool is synchronous or asynchronous, and what errors might occur. The provided context is too thin for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the query and platform parameters, but it does not mention either. The schema provides only names and an enum; the description adds no semantic meaning about how the query should be phrased, what each platform represents, or how defaults behave.

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 identifies a specific action ('start'), a specific resource ('tenant-scoped public Social Research search'), and a clear side effect ('save it in the authenticated LocalTry workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_workflow or search_crm without needing to open the schema.

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 does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. While the phrase 'Social Research search' implies a domain, there is no explicit guidance about when an agent should choose this over run_workflow, run_localtry_command, or search_crm.

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