Suggest

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real semantic detail: matching is on titles/names rather than content, and the tool mirrors Docmost's own search box and @-mentions behavior. It doesn't discuss ranking or result ordering, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 that names the operation, the matching model, the optional result kinds, and the comparative advantage over search. No filler.

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 six-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, annotation hints, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to choose and call it. Only minor gaps remain, such as match semantics (prefix vs. substring) and result ordering.

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% with per-parameter descriptions for limit, pages, people, groups, and space_id. The description only restates that people and groups are optional and echoes the partial-name matching already in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource: a fast name lookup returning pages whose title matches, plus optional people and groups. It also names the sibling it differs from ('Faster than search'), so an agent can pick between suggest and search without opening either schema.

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 a concrete use case — resolving a page id or person's id from a partial name — and explicitly contrasts with search on speed. The 'pages whose title matches' phrasing implicitly excludes content search, though no explicit 'do not use for' clause is provided.

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