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

With annotations already providing readOnlyHint=true, the description adds behavioral details: full-text and typo-tolerant matching, ordering by relevance and popularity (no paid placement), and the meaning of the premium field. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention rate limits or pagination.

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 a single focused paragraph, front-loaded with usage guidance and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains result ordering, the premium flag, and suggests using get_product for details. It covers search capabilities and use cases well, though it could mention return fields or pagination. Overall adequate.

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 50% (query described, limit not). The description adds context for query (typo-tolerant, full-text over names/descriptions/tags) but does not mention the limit parameter or its behavior. This partially compensates for schema gaps but not fully.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for digital tools or products by need, keyword, or name. It specifies the directory (uneed.best) and search capabilities (full-text, typo-tolerant). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product by mentioning using a result's slug for full details.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('looking for a digital tool or product by need, keyword or name') and provides guidance on interpreting results (e.g., premium: true is a disclosure, not a quality signal). It references get_product for full profiles, but does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to other siblings like search.

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