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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: that results are tool references automatically expanded into full tool definitions, and that both regex and natural language modes are available. This is useful for an agent to understand the return behavior and search flexibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place. It efficiently covers what the tool does and how it behaves without redundant elaboration.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains that results are tool references auto-expanded into full definitions, covering the main return behavior. The simple parameter set is fully documented by the schema, and annotations provide safety context. The description is sufficiently complete for this straightforward search 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 100%, with both parameters (query and mode) already described in the schema. The description reiterates the difference between regex and natural language but does not add new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching the available tool catalog to discover tools by name, description, or arguments. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are direct resource operations. The verb 'Search' and specific resource ('tool catalog') are explicit and unambiguous.

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 explains how to use the tool (via regex pattern or natural language query) and implies the use case: discovering relevant tools when the exact tool is unknown. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but as the only search tool among siblings, the context is clear. A brief note on when not to use it (e.g., when you already know the exact tool) would elevate it.

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