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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results come back with input schemas inline and each match names the call tool to invoke via `call_with`, which tells the agent how to chain discovery into execution.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the essential information, and no filler. The second sentence packs return shape and invocation routing into a single clause.

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 exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the `call_with` note covers the critical chaining step. But with six siblings including list_all_tools and describe_tool, the description leaves the selection boundary and the `limit` parameter unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for a discovery 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it clarifies that `query` is natural language (rather than a tool-name prefix or regex), which is real added meaning. However, `limit` and its default of 10 are never mentioned, and ranking/pagination behavior is unstated, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource: find tools matching a natural-language query, and clarifies it returns ranked matches rather than an exhaustive listing. That implicitly separates it from list_all_tools, but the description never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 by the phrase 'relevant to a natural-language query' — an agent can guess this is the discovery entry point, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against list_all_tools or describe_tool, and no statement about what to do when no matches are returned.

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