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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior beyond that: fuzzy/typo-tolerant matching, results ordered best-match-first, and a notable fallback where 'nothing matches it returns the closest kits instead' — a non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise misread as an empty result.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then behavior, then exclusion — a sensible order. It runs a bit long, and the presentation advice ('show the user the best 1–3 matches with title, price and tools') is arguably output-layer guidance, but every sentence is actionable rather than 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers trigger, matching behavior, fallback path, exclusion, and how to present results. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds matching semantics the schema cannot express: 'q' is matched any-word, best-match-first, typos tolerated, and 'tools' is framed as the tools the user already uses. That goes beyond the per-field text in the schema.

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 (finds published kits) and names the exact retrieval semantics: by desired result, optionally filtered by tools. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_kit, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('answer my WhatsApp', 'launch video'), covers the discovery case ('asks what CloneKit has'), and states the exclusion outright: 'Not needed when you already have a ref or a CloneKit link: call get_kit.' It even says what to do with the results, which is rare and useful.

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