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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial beyond-that context: it always returns all three categories most-recent-first, each capped at limit and not paged, and only items the caller can view. It also discloses the shape of each hit type, which an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 purpose and sibling routing are front-loaded, and the dense clause-heavy style wastes few words given how much return-shape and scoping detail it must convey without an output schema. The single-sentence wall of field lists is slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, keeping it off a 5.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly across all three hit categories, plus scoping limits (view-permitted, non-paged, capped). Everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that limit caps each category independently and that results are not paged. It also ties team_id to which 'team' the results describe. These nuances go beyond the field descriptions without contradicting them.

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 ('Search') and three resources (folders by name/description, assets by title, feedback by text) in one shot, and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings contents, feedback_list and recent_activity. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it does not do without opening a 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when you don't know where something is') and routes the agent to the correct alternative for each narrower case (contents for a known folder, feedback_list for one asset, recent_activity for latest feedback). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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