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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description still adds a lot: authentication requirement, result coverage and ordering, the exact exclusion set, and the shape of each returned entry. The 'truncated: true' explanation discloses a pagination behavior the annotations say nothing about.

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?

A single dense paragraph where nearly every clause carries information (auth, match rules, coverage, exclusions, return shape, truncation). It is front-loaded but with the sign-in note rather than the core purpose, and the sentence run-on makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by enumerating each returned field (id, title, kind, last change in ISO 8601) and the truncation flag. Auth requirements, ordering, and exclusions are all covered, so an agent can call this and interpret results without guessing.

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 schema already documents query and limit, and the baseline would be 3. The description still adds value by clarifying that the match applies 'anywhere in the title or a tag' and by tying the id field to the documentId parameter of downstream tools, plus explaining truncation relative to the limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the person's documents by title or by one of their own tags') plus precise matching semantics (case-insensitive, anywhere in title or tag). Scope is well bounded by the exclusion list (no folders, archived, or trashed items), though it never names the sibling list_documents to contrast search-with-query against plain enumeration.

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?

Gives clear usage context: sign-in required, covers owned plus shared documents, ordered newest-change-first, and explicitly excludes folders, archived, and trashed items. It also routes the agent forward ('pass it as documentId to read_document or to the compute tools'), but never says when to prefer this over list_documents.

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