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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the warning that sequences are shared and that activating/archiving affects every caller, plus that a live sequence sends real email. This explains consequences of subsequent actions on returned objects, which is useful for decision-making even though the search itself is read-only.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a concise warning. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, then adds a critical caveat. There is no filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers all necessary ground: what it does, when to use it, and a warning about the shared nature of sequences. The output schema handles return format details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool 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% — all three parameters (page, q_name, per_page) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond restating that it searches sequences. The baseline is 3 because the schema fully documents parameters, and the description offers no additional nuance like formatting or constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search email sequences in this workspace.' It clearly states the operation and the object. It also provides the purpose: to find a sequence id before adding contacts or changing state, which distinguishes it from sibling operations like archive or add contacts. The tool's role as a lookup is unambiguous.

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 description gives explicit usage context: 'Use it to find a sequence id before adding contacts to it or changing its state.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a search operation. The shared-sequence warning also informs the agent of downstream implications.

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