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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world-boundary are known. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — the library is team-restricted — but says nothing about matching behavior, result ordering, or pagination for what is a search tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating what is searched, what it contains, and who can see it. No filler and no redundancy with the title beyond the tool name itself.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, and access. Missing only search-behavior details (substring vs fuzzy, whether it spans file contents) that an agent would want before choosing it over search_library.

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 the baseline is 3: the schema already explains orgId, query, category (with a pointer to get_config), and includeOld. The description adds only the weak hint that query is optional ("list or search"), and nothing about matching semantics for the query parameter.

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 clear verb pair (list or search) and a specific resource (the company library), then scopes it as the team's own docs, templates, and files. That content scoping implicitly separates it from the client-facing search_library sibling, though it never names that sibling 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?

"List or search" implies that omitting a query lists everything, and "Team only" sets an access precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus search_library, get_library_item, or list_library_rules, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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