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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the search is free, requires no sign-in, supports Chinese or English keywords, and returns ids, titles, price per call, and live status. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but it provides solid behavioral context.

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?

The description is two dense sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and search dimensions are front-loaded, followed by return values and access/cost details.

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 usefully names the key returned fields and covers cost/auth requirements. With three parameters and full schema coverage, the core call requirements are documented. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning pagination or result limits, but nothing essential 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by listing many platform slug values that are not encoded as an enum in the schema, and by clarifying that keywords can be Chinese or English. It does not add detail for include_unavailable beyond what the schema already says.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: search Qovia data endpoints by keyword and/or platform. It clearly distinguishes searching from sibling tools like get_endpoint and call_endpoint by emphasizing discovery via keyword/platform rather than direct retrieval or invocation.

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?

It explains the two search dimensions (keyword and/or platform slug) and gives examples of valid platforms, which makes the intended use clear. However, it does not explicitly name get_endpoint as the alternative for fetching a known endpoint by ID, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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