Search monitoring

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: it is a parallel fan-out, defaults to all Tools Search sources, and explicitly does not search SearchQueries. This goes beyond the annotations and schema.

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 is compact, front-loads the core purpose, and uses short labeled lines for use/not-use/parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of the title or schema boilerplate.

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 10-parameter tool with many siblings, the description covers the essential selection logic, exclusions, scope default, and the one parameter needing extra explanation. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described, and the remaining parameter details are in the schema.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the 'kinds' parameter by noting case-insensitivity ('Sites,Apps,Mail' or 'sites,mail') and clarifying that null defaults to all sources, which the schema does not state. Other parameters are adequately covered by the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'parallel Monitoring fan-out with FilterKey' for 'find keyword X across activity'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding list_risks, get_idle_summary, list_anomalies, and SearchQueries, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 context is explicit: 'Use for: find keyword X across activity' and 'Prefer this over calling list_monitoring many times'. It also gives clear negative guidance with named sibling alternatives (list_risks, get_idle_summary, list_anomalies), leaving little to inference.

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