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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only published tools are searched and which fields are matched, but it does not disclose result ordering, pagination, or category-filter behavior beyond the 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, and search scope. Exactly as concise as a search-tool definition needs to be.

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 simple read-only search tool, the definition plus schema and annotations are sufficient to select and invoke it. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit return shape, but no output schema exists and the action implies a list of matches.

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 low (only category has a description), but the description explains that query matches name/tagline/maker. limit and category are inferable from schema constraints and category's description, though the interaction between query and category is not stated.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('published tools') plus the searchable attributes (name, tagline, maker). This clearly distinguishes it from get_tool for direct retrieval and list_categories for category browsing.

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 implies use when the agent wants to find tools by free-text search, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer get_tool or list_categories, nor any exclusions. Context is clear but alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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