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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations: result shape (descriptions plus up to 20 matches per page), the pagination contract (pass nextOffset as offset with the same query and filters), that filters exclude unknowns, that local dataSource is not an offline guarantee, and how suggestions and no-match results should be interpreted.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with what is found and how to query, then pagination, then filtering caveats. Some sentences (suggestions vs. no-match evidence) are long and could be split, but no sentence is filler.

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 10-parameter search tool with an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: query style, filter semantics, pagination, result count limits, and interpretation of suggestions and empty results. Return value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description meaningfully compensates: it explains that filters require documented values and drop unknown support, clarifies dataSource as catalog metadata rather than offline capability, and implies type/kind/deviceId/platform/needsSubscription/maxSetupMinutes narrowing. It does not clarify limit or offset bounds beyond the pagination hint, leaving a small 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 two resources ('Find devices and public-source mods') plus the searchable fields (device name, model, feature, project name). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_device and get_mod, which retrieve by identity rather than by keyword.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: concise keywords rather than sentences, 'type: mod to skip devices', and the specific filters for constraining mods. It also explains continuation via nextOffset. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to use once an exact device is identified (e.g. get_device), which keeps it below a 5.

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