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 one behavioral nuance — that schemas are included by default and can be dropped for compact results — but says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or how matching works beyond 'keyword'.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the secondary toggle after the semicolon. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema and full annotation set carry most of the load, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a discovery tool operating inside a playbook, it omits the scoping effect of playbook_id and any hint about how many/which tools are searchable, which are the main gaps.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including defaults and the limit cap. The description's 'include_schemas=false for short summaries' largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (find) and resource (operations/tools) plus the matching mechanism (keyword). It is clear what the tool does, but the term 'operations' sits awkwardly against the tool name 'find_tools' and the description never differentiates it from siblings like list_mcp_servers or list_skills.

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 only guidance is a parameter-level hint about include_schemas=false. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_mcp_servers/list_skills, no mention of what happens without a query, and no prerequisite context such as how playbook_id scopes results.

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