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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns tool names, one-line summaries, and required parameters, and every response includes a site_ref for chaining. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but those are minor for a search tool.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it does, when to call it, what it returns, and how to chain results.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in full. It still covers the essentials for selection and invocation: keyword search, when to use it first, return shape, and site_ref chaining through a complex nested object.

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 in the input schema. The description does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; it mainly reinforces the site_ref chaining behavior that the schema also describes.

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: 'Discover available Atlasly tools by keyword.' It clearly distinguishes this meta-search tool from all the domain-specific siblings by explaining that it returns tool names, summaries, and required parameters.

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 gives clear triggering guidance: 'Call this first when unsure which tool to use.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, e.g. when the agent already knows the target tool.

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