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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY, public catalog.' It adds context about the catalog being public and the exact output structure (title + snippet + id), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist. The description does not cover potential rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool the annotations and output schema cover the essential 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and the critical exclusion (NOT private KBs), and the second describes the return and usage. All information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description is fully adequate. It covers what the tool searches, what it excludes, what it returns, and how to use it. No missing information would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' having clear descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for a tool with full schema coverage. No additional value is needed here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FindAgent curated skill catalog') and explicitly differentiates from private knowledge bases, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also states the return format (title + snippet + id), which helps the agent understand what to expect. No sibling tool is similar enough to cause confusion.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: for platform-wide public catalog guides, not private knowledge bases. It also hints at the use case (grounding an answer). However, it does not name specific alternative tools for private KBs, so it stops short of fully explicit routing. The exclusion is clear, but the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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