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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only and free of side effects.' It adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: name matches rank above description matches, results include full input schemas, and returned tools are callable even when absent from tools/list unless pinned with ?toolset=. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph starting with the core purpose and then adding only high-value operational details: scope, ranking, limits, return contents, the tools/list caveat, and the ideal usage moment. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is operationally complete. It covers what the tool searches, how results are ranked, what is returned, when to use it, and a critical boundary condition about direct invocation of returned tools.

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 schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining query matching behavior (names and descriptions, with name-match ranking), reaffirming limit bounds, and specifying playbook_id as the target playbook identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search this playbook's complete tool catalog by keyword,' and it clearly enumerates both built-in and connected-server federated tools. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mcp_servers or call_connected_tool by framing it as a discovery/search utility.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the tool you need is not in your current list, before concluding a capability is missing.' It also explains what gets searched and the important tools/list boundary, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use cases.

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