search_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: it searches workbooks, published datasources and tables by default, groups results by type, pages client-side, scans only the first ~1200 of each type, and flags that truncation in a `note` field. Auth/rate-limit details are absent, but the pagination cap is a real disclosure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the matching semantics before usage routing and the paging caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs; 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still notes grouping and the `note` truncation field. Matching semantics, scope, parameter values, and the paging limit together leave nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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% and both properties carry only bare titles ('Term', 'Types'), so the description must compensate — and it does. It defines `term` as a case-insensitive substring match on name, and enumerates the `types` values ('workbook', 'datasource', 'table', 'field', 'column') plus the default search scope.

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 — find content whose NAME contains a substring — and immediately scopes it against siblings by noting that every other tool and the Metadata API filter are exact-match. An agent can distinguish it from graphql_query and where_used without opening a 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('when you only know part of a name') and when-not ('once you know the exact name, prefer graphql_query or where_used'), naming the alternatives. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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