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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world scope are covered. The description contributes the useful behavioral fact that matching is over preset ids and labels specifically, but says nothing about result ordering or relevance ranking.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the search scope stated first and the example folded in at the end. No wasted wording, though the trailing example reads slightly awkwardly inside the same sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and parameters are fully described, so the description only needs to establish search scope — which it does. What remains unstated is ranking or ordering of results, a minor gap for a search tool.

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 three parameters are already documented with defaults, bounds, and the category enum. The description's example phrase adds only marginal color and no new syntax or matching semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Keyword search over preset ids and labels") plus the scope (one category or all), which clearly separates it from get_preset or list_presets. It stops short of naming a sibling like browse_presets as the alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 conveys that the category parameter can be omitted to search everything and supplies an example query, which implies when the tool fits. It never states when to prefer list_presets or browse_presets over keyword search, leaving the choice to inference.

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