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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the result field set (name, category, one-line positioning, free tier, source, detail link) and index scale (228 tools / 36 categories), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It omits whether the operation is strictly read-only, how results are ranked/ordered, and what limit/offset pagination actually does.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval scope, followed by return values then use cases — a logical order with little waste. The returned-field list is slightly redundant with the use-case sentence about free tools, but nothing is padding.

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 7-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, return shape, corpus size, and example queries — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is pagination and result-ordering semantics, which no structured field supplies.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description merely restates the keyword/category/feature axes without adding syntax or matching behavior (e.g., whether keyword matches substring or fuzzy). It says nothing about limit, offset, or updated_since, the two pagination parameters being entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource in Chinese ("检索 aigoes.cn 收录的 AI 工具") and names the three filter axes plus the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_tool_detail or list_categories_features, though mentioning "详情页链接" hints at the boundary.

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?

Concrete example questions ("有哪些工具能做 X", "推荐免费的中文 AI 编程工具") make the intended use case clear, which is stronger than generic guidance. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative tools (get_tool_detail, list_categories_features, search_skills_mcp) that handle adjacent needs.

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