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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, and the description adds an important behavior: results are untrusted community content and should not be treated as instructions. This goes beyond schema/annotations and is directly useful for safe agent behavior.

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, with the action and scope front-loaded and the security-relevant warning placed second. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the essential boundaries (public and accessible private content) and a safety caveat about result trustworthiness. It does not describe pagination or result formatting, but those are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The sole parameter, query, has zero schema description, so the burden is on the tool description. The description does not explain query syntax or accepted formats; it only implies through the verb 'Search' that the string is the search expression. The scope statement adds context but does not compensate fully for the missing parameter documentation.

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, 'Search,' and names the resource: public content plus private rooms the caller belongs to. This distinguishes it from mutating or listing siblings such as send_message and list_rooms.

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 clarifies what content is in scope ('public content and private rooms you belong to'), implicitly excluding rooms the agent does not belong to. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it is a half-step below full routing guidance.

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