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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description adds real context on top: semantic (not keyword) matching, pagination via total/offset, and "the latest first" ordering for mine:true with last-check results. It also states the output is ids consumable by other tools, though other return fields remain unstated (no output schema exists).

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?

Front-loads the core verb and resource, then layers pagination and the mine:true mode. It is dense and slightly cluttered with parentheticals and the French « Mes pièces » aside, but nearly every clause carries usable information.

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 6-parameter, fully-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers search semantics, empty-query listing, paging, and the alternate mine mode. Return value shape is only partially described (ids and total), leaving the rest inferred.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: query is interpreted by meaning in FR/EN, an empty query enumerates a kind, offset drives paging, and mine:true switches the corpus to user pieces. That is genuine semantic added value over the field 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: "Find pieces of the library by meaning, in French or English", then enumerates the asset kinds covered. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_community, so an agent cannot tell which search to pick from purpose alone.

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?

Gives concrete conditional behavior: "An empty query lists a kind (`total` says how many there are; `offset` gives the next page)" and "mine: true lists the user's own pieces instead". Missing an explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_community or list_montages.

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