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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and read-only profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavior of its own — nothing about result ordering/relevance, whether matching is fuzzy or exact, or that some platforms require Pro (that constraint lives only in the schema).

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 verb, resource, and match dimensions stated immediately, followed by illustrative examples. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 simple read-only search with no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it never says what a result contains, how results are ranked or truncated by limit, or whether the search is substring versus semantic. The agent can call it, but cannot predict the return shape.

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 only 33%, but the gap is partially absorbed: platform carries its own enum documentation in the schema and limit has bounded defaults there. The description contributes real meaning only for query, clarifying that matching spans name, website, and theme — the other parameters get nothing beyond what the schema already says.

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 apps in the catalog') and names the matchable dimensions (name, website, theme), with concrete examples that clarify the intent. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from list_apps or get_app, so an agent must infer that this is the free-text path versus enumerate-or-fetch.

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?

The examples imply the search context (free-text lookup by brand name, domain, or category), but there is no stated when-to-use versus list_apps/list_categories, and no note on falling back to get_app once a result is found. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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