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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive and closed-world, so restating 'Read only' earns nothing. What the description does add is genuine behavioral detail: the ranking order (name first, then description and tags), which tells the agent how results are prioritized. It says nothing about result limits, scoring, or match behavior when the query is vague.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and example, then ranking, filters, safety, and next steps. The 'Read only' sentence duplicates the annotations and is the only clear waste.

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 four parameters, no covered schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, ranking, and the follow-up workflow, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is the meaning of the three filter parameters and any distinction from presetup_search.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely fails: query is illustrated with an example, but apps, category, and industry are never explained. 'Same filters as presetup_list' pushes the agent to another tool's definition to learn semantics, which is an indirection rather than an explanation.

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 presetups by text') and grounds it with a concrete example query, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling presetup_search, which by name appears to do something very similar, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 gives useful downstream routing ('Next step: presetup_get for the best match, then propose_presetups'), which tells the agent what to do after a hit. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over presetup_search or presetup_list, and only gestures at the latter via 'Same filters as presetup_list'.

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