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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed world), and the description adds real context beyond that: it may consume embedding providers and workspace resources, requires browser-side human approval, returns job_id and status, and warns that 'queued/running is not ready and successful preparation is not activation.' The retry caveat is valuable for a non-idempotent operation. It stops short of describing timing or failure modes.

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-loads what the tool does and where it sits in the sequence; each sentence carries workflow or behavioral information. It is dense but not padded. Slightly overloaded with the multi-step routing chain for a single-sentence reader.

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?

With no output schema, the description must cover returns, and it does state 'Returns job_id and status' plus downstream steps for interpreting that status. The async lifecycle caveat ('preparation is not activation') is exactly the completeness gap an agent would otherwise miss. Minor gap: the required table_id is not addressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that table_version_id must be an exact sealed version and that search_revision_id is optional, which adds meaning. However, the required table_id parameter is never mentioned in the description, and no UUID/format guidance is given, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('starts search preparation for one exact sealed table_version_id') and positions the tool within a named workflow. An agent can distinguish it from configure_table_search, get_search_job, inspect_table_search, and activate_table_search without opening schemas.

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 explicit next-step routing: 'get_search_job until terminal, inspect_table_search for readiness, then activate_table_search for the qualified generation.' It also states a when-not/retry rule: 'If the outcome is unknown, inspect metadata before retrying.' Nothing is left to inference.

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