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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description's added value is its domain detail: results include the page, the page runs in the browser, the file is never sent to a server, and redaction strips the underlying text and verifies it can't be copied. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it describes the returned tools more than the search operation itself.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose before the usage condition, and the query examples are compact and informative. It runs a little long, and the trailing redaction sentence is arguably tangential to a search tool, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it returns ("the matching tools, each with its page") and when to invoke it. The absence of explicit routing against sibling discovery tools is the only meaningful 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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description slightly exceeds it by characterizing the input as the user's own words and supplying four concrete query examples ("combine two contracts", "my scan has no searchable text", etc.) that clarify the expected free-text style.

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 a precise resource ("the DocuGrip page that does a PDF or document task"), and makes clear it accepts a natural-language task description and returns matching tools with their pages. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_pdf_tools or get_pdf_tool, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives a clear usage condition — "Use this when the user wants to do the task themselves" — and enumerates the task types that qualify (compress, merge, split, convert, OCR, redact, sign, fill, edit), plus the privacy-driven case where the file must not be uploaded. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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