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

Annotations provide little guidance since all hints are false. The description does disclose that the tool starts a persistent search session and returns only first matches, but it does not mention session lifecycle concerns or how to retrieve further results, relying on sibling tools for that context.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The usage guidance and primary behavior are front-loaded, and the sibling distinction is placed directly after the purpose statement.

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?

With a full input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the key contextual needs: when to use the tool, what it does, and how it differs from read_files. It could additionally mention get_more_search_results or stop_search for session follow-up, but that is not required for initial invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool starts a search session to find filenames or perform content searches under a path, and that it returns the first matches. It also distinguishes itself from read_files by explicitly naming the alternative and its different purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance: use this when the user wants to find filenames or content search and does not need every matched file read in full. It also names read_files as the alternative when a glob is already known and file contents are desired.

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