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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation is free, and results include credit cost and a side-effect flag, which helps the agent reason about downstream calls.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then the language constraint. Each sentence carries information; only the English constraint is slightly repeated between description and schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back (matching tool names with credit cost and side-effect flags). For a two-parameter read-only search tool this is nearly complete; only the limit parameter's behavior is unaddressed.

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 50%: q is documented in the schema, but limit is undocumented in both schema and description. The description reinforces the English-intent constraint on q (already in the schema) and adds the cross-language nuance, but does not compensate for the unexplained limit parameter.

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 ('Search the Hyreflow tool catalog by intent') and gives a concrete example query, so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hyreflow_tools_describe or hyreflow_tools_execute, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Provides a real usage constraint ('describe the intent in English whatever language the user wrote in') and cost information ('Free'), which imply this is the entry point of a search→describe→execute flow. However, it never states when to use this versus hyreflow_tools_describe or hyreflow_tools_execute, leaving the routing to inference.

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