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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: results are bounded summaries rather than full template contents, which sets expectations since no output schema 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing in the text is redundant with the name or annotations.

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 search tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description says nothing about what a "summary" contains, how query matching works, or how paging interacts with the limit cap. This is under-specified for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters (limit, query, offset), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. An agent must infer that `query` is a free-text search term, that `limit` caps at 20, and that `offset` supports paging purely from bare property names and numeric bounds.

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+resource ("Search Shareout templates"), which cleanly separates it from retrieval siblings like shareout_get_template. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, leaving the search-vs-fetch distinction implicit in the second sentence.

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?

"Returns bounded summaries, not file contents" implies that shareout_get_template is the alternative when full content is needed, but this is never stated as an explicit rule. No guidance on when to use search at all, or on query construction.

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