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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description contributes the useful qualifier 'live list,' hinting that archived or otherwise non-live lists are out of scope, but it never explains what that means, whether matching is fuzzy or exact, or how results are ordered or capped.

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 tight sentences with the primary purpose and scope front-loaded, followed by the motivating use cases. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant framing or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient — an agent knows what to pass and when to call it. The only loose end is the unexplained 'live list' qualifier, which affects which list values are valid input.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's mention of 'a name, something from the curator's note, a place' essentially restates the query parameter's schema text. No additional matching semantics (case sensitivity, multi-word behavior, partial matches) are added, so 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 ('Find') and a precisely scoped resource ('picks inside one live list'), and names the search surface (name, curator's note, place). The phrase 'inside one live list' cleanly separates it from sibling searches like search_items, search_library, and search_lists.

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 two concrete triggers: verifying whether something is on a given list, and searching a long list 'instead of reading every pick' — implicitly directing the agent away from list_items/get_list_items. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the routing is clear but not fully spelled out.

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