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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context by explicitly noting 'Read-only despite being a POST' and describing the pagination mechanism. It stops short of covering authentication, rate limits, or return format.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then critical behavioral notes, then the endpoint reference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 8-parameter search tool with no output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose, scoping, pagination, and the POST/read-only nuance. It does not describe the shape of returned results, which would be helpful absent an output schema.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description only summarizes name, type, and folder scoping without adding syntax, defaults, or other meaning beyond the schema.

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) with scope (by name, optionally limited to items/folders and specific folders). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_items by focusing on name-based search, but does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: searching by name with optional type and folder scoping. It also explains pagination (send same arguments with next page number), though it does not state when not to use it or name a sibling alternative.

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