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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the search can be scoped to folder, tab, and date range, but says nothing about result batching/truncation behavior even though the schema's offset description hints at it, and the trailing 'Archive.SearchDocuments' is an endpoint tag rather than useful behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and the optional narrowing front-loaded, then a terse endpoint reference. Nothing is padded or buried.

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 11-parameter read-only search, the description covers the primary search axis, the field selector, and all the optional scoping filters, and the schema carries the rest. It would be fully complete if it mentioned paging/next_offset behavior and how it differs from yuki_list_documents.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented with defaults, ranges, enums, and date formats. The description restates the searchable field set and the optional filters, which reinforces the enum semantics but adds no format or constraint information beyond the schema; 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 and resource (search archive documents) plus the searchable fields and the optional folder/tab/date narrowing, so the operation is unmistakable. It never names yuki_list_documents or another sibling, so the agent must infer from the names that listing vs. text-searching are different entry points.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'search by text' suggests this tool when the caller has a query string rather than a browse/list intent. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to yuki_list_documents for unfiltered enumeration.

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