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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the credit cost ('1 point per returned record') and the returned field set, which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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-loads the action and category requirement, then packs filters and return fields into a compact second clause. Slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

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, listing the returned fields and the per-record cost makes the definition largely self-sufficient for a browse tool. Minor gaps remain around pagination (start_page/max_items) and how it relates to run_futurepedia_tools.

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 all seven parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description restates the filter categories (sorting, pricing, feature, verified) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, matching the baseline 3.

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+resource (list AI tools of one Futurepedia category) and enumerates the returned fields. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely named sibling run_futurepedia_tools, leaving the agent to guess how 'search' differs from that tool.

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?

Usage is implied by 'of one Futurepedia category' and the filter list, so the agent can infer this is the filtered-browse entry point. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs run_futurepedia_tools or run_futurepedia_categories, and no exclusions.

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