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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (dated catalog summaries and source links) and the interpretation of empty results, which an agent needs to reason about outcomes.

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?

Two dense sentences, no filler, with the core search scope front-loaded and the return/empty-result semantics trailing. Every clause (language scope, filter axes, return content, empty meaning) earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to describe returns (dated summaries plus source links) and the empty-result case, which is exactly what's needed. The only shortfall is that the pagination/limit params are left uncovered for an 8-parameter tool.

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 25%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains that query accepts a task, product name or official domain in English or Chinese, and maps the pricing/setup/category/task/evidence filters. Only limit and offset go unexplained in both schema and description.

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) plus resource (public Agenlify catalog) and the match modes (English/Chinese task, product name, official domain), and enumerates the filter axes. It is clearly distinguishable from get_agent (single-item fetch) and list_tasks, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the filter list; the description does note that an empty query lists products and that empty results mean no documented match, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this vs get_agent/list_tasks guidance or exclusions.

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