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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the scope ('across all pages in a space') and the underlying REST method, which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result format, or rate limits, so it does not exceed the minimal bar for additional behavioral context.

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 exactly two sentences: one stating the tool's function, and one providing the API endpoint. Every word contributes to clarity, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the technical reference concise.

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 tool is straightforward (search with pagination) and has full parameter documentation plus readOnlyHint. While there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but for a full-text search tool this is not a critical omission given the simplicity. The context is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a brief note on result structure would elevate completeness.

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 100%, meaning all four parameters (spaceId, query, page, limit) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'full-text search' aligns with the query parameter's schema description, so it does not meaningfully enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Full-text search across all pages in a space.' It specifies a distinct verb ('search') and resource ('space'), and differentiates from sibling tools like search_organization by explicitly scoping to a space. The REST endpoint reference further anchors its purpose.

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 provides clear context that this searches within a specific space, implying when to use it (space-scoped search). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as noting that organization-wide search would use gitbook_search_organization. Still, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it appropriately.

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