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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add operational detail, which it does: search matches item text, superseded versions are hidden by default, and every item carries a citation link. It does not mention result limits or pagination, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core list/search capability, then escalating to behavioral detail (search scope, version filtering, citation links). No sentence is redundant with another and nothing could be cut without losing 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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (item types plus a citation link) and the one non-obvious filtering rule. It stops short of describing result volume, ordering, or pagination, which an agent would need for large libraries.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by disclosing default behavior semantics — that old versions are excluded unless includeOld is true, and that query matching extends to each item's body text rather than just titles. It says nothing about the category key beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete verb pair (list or search) and a concrete resource (client's library), then enumerates the item types returned: files, links, notes, docs, and delivered work. The phrase "a client's library" implicitly scopes it against the sibling search_company_library, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb pair — omit query to list, supply query to search — but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over search_company_library or get_library_item, both of which appear in the sibling list. An agent must infer the client-library vs company-library split from the single word "client's".

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