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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a genuine permission nuance beyond structured data: it only covers lists readable in full, which affects result completeness. It still omits return/pagination behavior, but the access constraint is real added context.

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: scope first, then a motivating example, then the access caveat. No filler, well front-loaded, and appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 with a fully documented 3-param schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the read-access constraint. It could still clarify how it differs from the other search_* tools, which is the one meaningful gap.

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 list, limit, and query are all documented in the schema already. The example adds a little intuition about what 'query' matches against, but the description supplies no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, 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 (search) and resource (inside lists the person can access), with a concrete example query that clarifies it searches list contents. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like search_items or search_lists, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between 'inside lists' and those alternatives.

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 ramen/Tokyo example implies the intended use case (find something you saw inside a list), and 'only searches lists they can read in full' hints at a precondition. But it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this versus search_items/search_lists, so routing 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.