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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: queryless calls degrade to a full title-only listing, which tells the agent what to expect from an empty search. It omits pagination and result-count limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the search behavior front-loaded and the degenerate case immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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, two-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search semantics and the empty-query case, so an agent can call it correctly. Only the return shape (fields per result) and result limits are left implicit.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by stating which fields the query string is matched against (type, title, description) and what happens when query is absent, adding real semantics the schema does not carry.

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?

A specific verb (searches) and a specific resource (block types flows are built from), plus the match fields (type, title, description). It is clearly distinct from search_discord_api and search_templates by naming the block-type domain, though it never names a sibling directly.

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 second sentence establishes the no-argument behavior (list everything by title only), which implicitly tells an agent that omitting query is valid. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus get_blocks or the other search tools in the sibling set.

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