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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuine context by flagging the read-only-but-POST quirk and by explaining the pagination protocol (resend the same arguments with the next page number), which the schema does not convey. It still omits rate limits and what the response contains.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, scope second, behavioral caveat plus pagination last. No filler and the API mapping is compressed into a single trailing clause.

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 an eight-parameter, no-required-arg search tool whose schema is fully documented and whose annotations cover safety, the description covers purpose, scoping, and pagination adequately. Only the shape of returned results is unaddressed, and no output schema exists to cover it.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already self-documenting; the description only restates the type restriction and folder scoping at a high level and adds no format or interaction detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (items and folders) plus the scoping dimension (name, folder). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sortly_list_items and sortly_get_item, which enumerate or fetch rather than search by name.

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 description implies when to use it (name-based lookup with optional type/folder scoping) but never names an alternative such as sortly_list_items for unfiltered enumeration or sortly_get_item for direct ID fetch. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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