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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, description, family, price), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose, return shape, and routing cue in that order. Nothing redundant with the schema or title.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and result fields adequately. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and how the catalogue is scoped, but nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented with examples and bounds. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-semantics detail (e.g. stemming, multi-word behavior) beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 intelligence services by keyword'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like edge_get_service (fetch one by id) and edge_list_families (enumerate taxonomy). An agent can tell this is the keyword-discovery entry point without opening any 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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it: 'Start here when you know what evidence you need but not which service provides it.' That is a clear routing rule that implicitly names the alternative path (use edge_get_service once you know the id).

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