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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real context by stating it reads the catalog only and never reads or changes account data, that results are scope-limited ('all 89 for a personal access token'), and that output carries read-only/write labels. It stops short of describing pagination or result-size limits.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and when to call it, with no redundancy against the schema or annotations. Each sentence contributes either routing, output shape, or parameter behavior.

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 discovery tool with a single optional param and an existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, the read-only/write labeling, scope-dependent coverage, and the mandatory sequencing before execute_typescript.

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 mechanics (case-insensitive substring over name/title/description; omit to return all) are already in the schema, keeping the baseline at 3. The description goes beyond that by supplying concrete example queries ('build', 'review') and tying omission to scope-limited full listing, which meaningfully aids query construction.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search the Snapvisor tools this connection can reach') and enumerates the domain it covers (projects, builds, diffs, reviews, tests, comments, media, settings). It also names the sibling execute_typescript and positions search_tools relative to it, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 ordering directive ('Use it first, before execute_typescript') and states the goal that selects this tool (find the operation that answers the user's request). The query usage is also qualified — pass a query to narrow, omit to list everything — so both call modes are covered.

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