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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: results are intentionally bounded, full content is never returned, and workspace selection can be omitted in certain cases. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct, actionable guidance: bounded results, workspace selector behavior, and query usage.

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 read-only annotations, an output schema, and no required parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool and how to handle workspace disambiguation and pagination. The only minor gap is not naming a sibling explicitly, but the 'without returning full content' phrase already conveys the main boundary.

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 only 60%, and the description compensates by explaining query's purpose ('use query for a title instead of loading every page') and by clarifying workspaceName versus workspaceId usage. Cursor and workspaceId already have schema descriptions, but limit lacks descriptive guidance. Overall, the description adds meaningful parameter-level decision support.

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 or page through Markdown Documents in a workspace without returning full content,' naming the action, resource, scope, and a key distinguishing constraint. This clearly separates it from read_article (which returns full content) and from editing/publishing siblings.

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 gives concrete conditions: omit the workspace selector for single-workspace users, pass workspaceName when the user chose a workspace by name, and use query for a title search rather than loading pages. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling like read_article for when full content is needed, so it stops short of a full when-not recommendation.

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