search_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the Enterprise-only restriction and the 403 failure mode, which is beyond what annotations capture. It does not go into pagination or indexing details, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: functionality, licensing constraint, and routing to an alternative. No redundant phrasing or schema repetition.

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 covers the main functional, licensing, and alternative-selection context. There is no output schema, but for a read-only search tool the behavior is sufficiently clear. Minor gaps like pagination defaults or result shape are not critical given the annotations.

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?

The required query parameter has no schema description, but the tool description fills that gap by explaining it searches by name or indexed text. The optional limit and space_id parameters are already described in the schema, so the description need not repeat them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search file attachments by name or indexed text.' It also differentiates from the sibling get_attachment_info, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states that this is an Enterprise feature, warns that Community Edition returns 403, and tells the agent to prefer get_attachment_info when an attachment id is already available. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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