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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds the important behavioral trait that results are lightweight name/id pairs rather than full records, which is exactly what an agent needs to choose between this and a detail-fetching sibling. Pagination behavior is not mentioned, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then the use case, in two tight sentences. The trailing "GET /v6/search/list" is implementation detail that adds little for an agent and costs a bit of conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does the key work of saying results are names and ids. It doesn't say whether results are paged or bounded despite a `first` parameter implying pagination, which is a minor but real gap for a search tool.

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%, with documented semantics for first, exact_match and starts_with, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description's item-type enumeration adds a little context but largely mirrors the enum, so the 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 (look up) and resource (names and ids of one item kind), enumerating the item types and framing itself as an id/name resolver. That framing clearly separates it from the many specialized list_*/get_* siblings which return full records for one fixed resource type.

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?

"Use it to find the id or exact name another tool needs" gives a clear selection condition. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it (e.g. prefer vintrace_list_blocks when you want full block detail), so no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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