x_api_search_spaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating 'Risk: read-only,' required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior, common failure conditions, and a safety warning about sensitive data. This is a thorough disclosure, though it does not cover every nuance (e.g., pagination behavior), leaving a small 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?

The description uses labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.), making it well structured and scannable. It is lengthy but each section contributes meaningful information for a complex tool. It could be tightened, but the structure helps compensate for the length.

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?

The description provides expected response shape, common failure conditions, prerequisites, and environment-selection behavior, which is good for a tool with no output schema. However, it lacks complete parameter semantics for all 9 parameters and does not fully describe the result data. Given the tool's complexity, the description is not fully complete, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only documents formats/constraints for query, state, and max_results, and briefly describes environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. Several parameters (authorizationKey, preferredAuthType) are not explained, and no defaults or complete behaviors are given. This is a significant gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'Search Spaces.', which clearly identifies the action (Search) and resource (Spaces). However, it does not elaborate on what kind of search (e.g., keyword, title) or otherwise distinguish from sibling search tools like x_api_search_communities or x_api_search_news, so it is clear but not strongly differentiated.

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 provides explicit 'Use when:' and 'Do not use when:' guidance, including specific alternatives such as x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion. It also names recommended prerequisite tools, giving the agent clear direction on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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