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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: page size cap, cursor pagination, the fact that listings may be invited-only, that price/slug/purchase permission are absent, and that provider text is untrusted. These are genuine behavioral caveats beyond structured data, though nothing is said about error or empty-result behavior.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before pagination and caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the 'nextCursor' naming versus the schema's 'cursor' parameter is a small source of ambiguity.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers pagination and listing caveats well. However, for a tool with a nested query object and four undocumented parameters, the description leaves the input contract largely unexplained.

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% across 4 parameters, including a nested query object (after, limit, definitionDigest), and the description only alludes to limit and cursor implicitly via 'nextCursor.' It never explains the query object, definitionDigest, or how search differs from query, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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: 'Find public Voidpay service descriptions,' which clearly distinguishes it as a read/browse listing tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like voidpay_storefront, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the pagination mechanics ('Each call returns one page... a returned nextCursor value selects the next page'), which tells the agent how to iterate listings, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus voidpay_storefront or the other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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