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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that search returns compact rows with snippets and that full bodies require stride.get_document.

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 front-loaded with purpose, filters, return shape, and the full-body alternative. The final sentence is slightly redundant, but overall it remains efficient and easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains that results are compact rows with snippets, which is enough for an agent to understand the return shape. Combined with annotations and 80% schema coverage, it is nearly complete, though pagination and default limit behavior are left to the schema.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the important filters and full-text scope over title and body, but it does not add significant syntax or behavior beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: search a project's Library documents by keyword/phrase with optional template and recency filters. It clearly distinguishes this from reading a full document by naming stride.get_document and its role.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use this tool: finding written team context across document types, and it names stride.get_document as the alternative for full document bodies. It does not explicitly compare against non-document siblings such as search_stories, but the document-specific scope is clear.

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