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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: the catalog size (3,800+ endpoints, 110 providers), what is returned, the two execution paths, that calls are charged to prepaid credits, and that no money is spent without an account. This is real behavioral disclosure about cost and auth that the annotations cannot convey.

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 search purpose and examples are front-loaded, and the sentence about execution paths is useful for an agent deciding what to do after the search. The inclusion of the MCP URL and CLI syntax is slightly more operational detail than a search tool strictly needs, but it is compact and not padded.

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 two-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what can be searched, what comes back (ids, providers, per-call prices), and how to proceed after the search. Only the exact response shape and pagination/limit behavior are left implicit, which is minor here.

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, but the description's worked examples clarify that `job` is a natural-language goal in English or Korean rather than a keyword or endpoint id, which adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's short one-liner. The `limit` parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource — searching the treg.to catalog of live-data endpoints — and backs it with concrete job examples ('find TikTok beauty creators', 'Amazon best sellers'). It also distinguishes itself from the other tools by noting it returns endpoint ids/providers/prices rather than performing the job itself.

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 clearly says when to use it: to find an endpoint that does a job, with examples of the kind of job phrasing expected. It then routes the agent onward to live_call, the treg MCP server, or the CLI depending on account state, which is explicit usage guidance. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g. when the sibling tools like market_scan or find_item are the better choice), so it stops short of a 5.

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