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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's main added value is the recursion behavior — searching the target folder and its subfolders. That is a meaningful behavioral detail, but nothing is said about result ordering, matching semantics (substring vs exact), or pagination 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and criteria, followed by the invocation constraint and the endpoint. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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 a read-only search tool with full parameter descriptions and an explicit at-least-one-input rule, the definition covers everything needed to invoke it correctly; pagination fields are documented in the schema, and no output schema means return-value detail is not required.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: although 'required' is empty, the API needs at least one of name or extensions, and the description states this explicitly. It also confirms the folder+subfolder scope of 'path', which the schema only calls 'the folder to search in'.

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) plus resource (Muse workspace files) and the matching criteria (part of name and/or extensions, within a folder and its subfolders). It is clear, but it never names a sibling such as muse_list_files to distinguish browsing from searching, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The line 'Send at least one of name and extensions' gives a real invocation constraint, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus muse_list_files or muse_read_file, so the usage context is only implied.

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