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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the disclosure that row hits are 'advisory candidates, not exhaustive query results' warns the agent not to treat the output as a complete result set, which is a meaningful caveat not expressible via annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the second sentence carries information that changes how the agent interprets results.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description adequately conveys scope plus the advisory-results caveat. However, given a dense field of near-identical search/query siblings, it omits any guidance on when this grouped search should be chosen over sheets_search or sheets_search_rows, and it leaves the per-group limit semantics unstated.

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 50%: 'query' is documented in-schema while 'limitPerGroup' has no description. The word 'grouped' implicitly explains that the limit applies per result group (sheets, rows, docs, website), which adds some meaning over the bare integer bounds, but the description never states this relationship explicitly nor covers the query format constraints.

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 ('Discover') and enumerates the resources covered: accessible sheets, relevant rows, and public Leadbase documentation or website content. The 'in one grouped search' phrase signals it is a multi-source aggregator, which implicitly separates it from the single-source siblings like sheets_search or sheets_search_rows, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 scope statement implies when to reach for it (cross-source discovery in a single call), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many closely related siblings (sheets_search, sheets_search_rows, sheets_query, sheet_workspace). The agent must infer the routing decision.

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