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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the returned fields (id, name, workspace, parent_document_id, updated_at) and the cross-workspace, single-call scope — meaningful context given there is no output schema. It does not mention limits or ranking of results.

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, front-loaded blocks: purpose/scope, return shape, then usage and disambiguation. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated.

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 correctly enumerates the return fields; with annotations covering safety, the remaining burden is scope, trigger condition, and ambiguity handling — all present. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that matching is by name (consistent with 'Parte del nombre del documento') and says nothing about the limit parameter or default of 30.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource with an explicit scope: search documents BY NAME across ALL the user's workspaces in a single call. That scope distinguishes it from workspace-scoped siblings such as get_documents or get_documents_by_entity, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a concrete triggering condition (the user names a document and its workspace is unknown) and even prescribes follow-up behavior for ambiguous results ('si vuelve más de uno con nombre parecido, preguntá cuál antes de escribir'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it.

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