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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two real behavioral traits: results are relevance-ranked and only latest versions are returned, which affects expectations about ordering and duplicates. It says nothing about permissions, consent requirements, result caps, or pagination — notable gaps for a search tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource first and the behavioral qualifiers parenthesized — no waste and front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions suffer.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters leave the definition thin. The description doesn't convey result shape, ranking explanation, or how the two boolean filters change the result set — an agent could call it but not confidently configure it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely doesn't. 'Shared' hints at the community/exclusion scope but neither exclude_own nor community_only is explained, and the query semantics (matching behavior, syntax) are left entirely to guesswork.

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 (shared cubes) and adds scope qualifiers — relevance-ranked, latest versions only — that separate it from cube_get (fetch by id) and cube_create. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the discovery path when it lacks a cube id and that cube_get is the retrieval path, and nothing tells it when exclude_own or community_only should be set.

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