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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says the tool 'logs every search to a roadmap database' and that unmet queries can jump the build queue. Logging and queueing are write side effects, contradicting the readOnlyHint annotation. The description otherwise adds useful context such as costing no credits, but the contradiction dominates.

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 logically organized and front-loads its core purpose and 'call this FIRST' directive. However, it is quite long, with an exhaustive domain list and a pricing/signup note that is not necessary for correct tool selection. It is structured well but not 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?

For a catalog-discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, cost behavior, the logging side effect, and post-search next steps. It does not specify detailed response formatting, but an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly. The readOnly contradiction makes state behavior ambiguous, but overall completeness is strong.

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 single query parameter already has a clear schema description with examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds value by enumerating the many domains the query can target, which helps an agent formulate meaningful searches. It does not provide query syntax details, but the schema covers the basics.

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 identifies the tool as the catalog router for the entire platform, stating it returns exact tool names for matched domains and instructing 'Call this FIRST.' This makes it unmistakably distinct from the domain-specific sibling tools it routes to.

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 explicit trigger conditions: use when unsure which tool to use, when the user asks about data availability, and provides direct example phrasings. It also explains the next step after finding a tool. It does not explicitly spell out when-not to use it, but the 'call FIRST when unsure' framing implies that direct calls to known tools are the alternative.

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