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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: searches don't consume credits, the result set may omit colors ('when the library has them'), and it warns against fabricating ids. It does not describe result count or empty-result behavior, keeping it at a 4.

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, each carrying a distinct fact (what it returns, domain format, next tool, credit cost, id fabrication warning). Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 supplies the return shape (logoIds and colors) that the schema cannot. Combined with credit cost, domain format, and the chained import step, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the URL-reduction behavior for domain and the projectId override semantics. The description's 'pass a domain such as stripe.com, with no scheme' largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 official logos for a company domain') and names the payload it returns (logoIds, colors). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling import_logo by positioning itself as the step before it, so an agent can separate the search from the import without opening either schema.

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?

Clear usage context: pass a bare domain, then call import_logo with one logoId, and a useful condition ('Searches do not use credits'). It stops short of explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. vs search_library or search_stock), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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