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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond them: with no query the result is a name-only listing, implying reduced detail in that mode. It does not say whether matches include descriptions, how many results come back, or whether matching is fuzzy or exact.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the non-obvious default behavior rather than restating the name.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what it matches on, examples, and the empty-query fallback. Only the result shape when a query is supplied (names only vs. names plus descriptions) and any result cap remain unstated.

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% for the single query parameter, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that the parameter is optional and what omitting it does, plus concrete example search terms and the fields being matched (name or description), which the schema does not state.

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?

Names a specific verb (searches) and a precise resource: the calls available to a Run JavaScript block, with the concrete action id (action_javascript_run) and example call names (discord.getChannel, variables.get, http.request). It does not name the closest sibling get_code_calls, so the boundary between the two is left for the agent to infer.

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 explains the two modes of use implicitly: supply words to search by name/description, or omit words to enumerate everything by name. That is a useful condition, but it never states when to pick this over get_code_calls or the other search_* tools, so alternatives are unaddressed.

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