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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: results are tagged source:'own' or 'standard_library' and ordering puts your own results first. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination, so not a 5.

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 compact sentences, each load-bearing: what it searches, how matching and default listing work, and the escape hatch. No repetition of the tool name or filler.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers sources, matching semantics, ordering, and the fallback route. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is self-documenting, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema: matching is plain-language (not keyword/exact) and the default ordering when the query is omitted is 'your own first', which the schema does not state.

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 (browse) and resource (analyses you can run), and goes further by naming the two content sources it spans: your commissioned analyses plus the platform Standard Library. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like ask_library, tools_schema, or my_objects without opening the 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 explicit when-to-use (browse available analyses), what happens with no argument ('no query lists everything, your own first'), and a concrete fallback path when nothing matches ('Commission it with path_resolver'). Both the trigger and the alternative are stated rather than inferred.

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