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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the sequencing context (call before workspace-scoped tools), but does not describe return shape, matching semantics, or pagination. This is mild added context rather than rich behavioral disclosure.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, usage context second. It wastes no words and does not repeat the title or schema content.

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 simple, annotation-covered search tool, the description supplies the essential purpose and usage context. The only gap is that, with no output schema, it does not state what the returned matches look like; but the low complexity and clear intent make this a minor omission.

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?

The sole parameter 'query' is already fully described in the schema as 'Workspace name or slug search query'. The description's 'by name or slug' restates rather than extends the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description carries no additional parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific action ('Search') and a precise resource ('workspaces by name or slug'), then states its role: a pre-step before workspace-scoped tools. It clearly differentiates this tool from a broad list_workspaces enumeration by emphasizing targeted lookup.

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?

'Before calling workspace-scoped tools' provides explicit timing and context for when to use this tool. It does not name list_workspaces as the alternative for listing all workspaces, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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