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

Annotations only cover read-only/open-world/idempotent safety; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: default eight compact descriptors, view:full returning up to 100 records, pagination via meta.nextOffset, response payload contents (freshness, requirements, limitations, prices), the caveat that provider availability is not proof of success, and that licensing findings are evidence not legal advice.

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 core purpose, then pagination, then filters, then caveats and follow-up tools in a logical order. Dense but largely earns its length given 15 parameters; the licensing-disclaimer and provider-availability sentences edge into boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema and 15 parameters, and the description does describe the response envelope (meta.nextOffset, card field, freshness/requirements) which is genuinely helpful. However, with no schema descriptions at all, the unexplained 'type', 'reference', and licensing filter parameters leave real gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 0% across 15 parameters. The description explains limit (1-100), offset/nextOffset, view:full, category and delivery filters, and query as a task sentence or tool name, but leaves 'type', 'reference', and the seven licensing parameters (licenseSpdx, licenseStatus, licenseEvidence, licenseReciprocal, licenseUnresolved, licensePolicyState, bundleMembers) undocumented. This compensates for only about half the parameter surface.

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 ('Browse every public Daystruct capability... or search using a task sentence or tool name'), and scopes it against siblings: private Data/Memory cards go to list_daystruct_cards instead. An agent can distinguish this catalog from search_daystruct_library or search_entities 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 clear operating context: use search by task sentence or tool name, follow meta.nextOffset until null, and 'inspect a reference for its full contract before using it.' It also names the exclusion (private cards) and the follow-up tool (get_daystruct_card_image). No explicit statement of when to prefer sibling search_daystruct_library, so not a full 5.

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