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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: truncation exposure via meta.matched and fullResults, exclusion of entries without licensing evidence, summary licensing on filtered lists, and the legal disclaimer. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 of about 150 words. It front-loads the purpose but then packs many caveats and licensing details without clear structural breaks. It is not overly verbose but could be better organized with separate sentences or bullet-like clarity.

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 complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description covers the return format (descriptors, matched terms, prices, etc.), the follow-up action (inspect by reference), and licensing behavior. It lacks explicit handling of all parameter combos but is reasonably complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains the query and reference parameters and groups the licensing filters, but it does not detail each of the 9 parameters individually (e.g., licenseSpdx, licenseStatus, bundleMembers). It provides enough high-level meaning for the main workflow but leaves specifics to inference.

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 finds available Daystruct capabilities using a task sentence or tool name, specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like search_daystruct_library but does not explicitly differentiate itself, so it misses the top score.

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 provides procedural guidance (inspect by reference, use licensing filters) and warns about provider availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_daystruct_library or prepare_daystruct_capabilities. It implies usage rather than offering exclusion criteria.

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