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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them: creations are stored permanently, results default to newest-first when no query is given, and each result carries a permanent URL, prompt, and model. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences: first states what is searched and the filter modes, then the default ordering and result contents. Front-loaded and zero waste for a seven-parameter tool.

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?

Given seven optional params, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description covers the main search modes, default behavior, and return fields. Pagination details live in the schema; overall the definition is nearly complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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%, so all seven parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a semantic-search example ('a red car at night') and clarifies that no query yields newest-first, but this is marginal beyond the already-rich 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (creations the user saved in Mage, kept permanently), and enumerates the filter modalities (meaning, media type, collection, date). The resource is specific enough to separate it from list_history or list_references, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implies usage: search by meaning with `query`, or filter by media type/collection/date, and it notes the no-query default. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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