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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the catalog is versioned and that results include 'canonical URLs, Markdown URLs, revisions and evidence status', which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second states the return value highlights. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It fails to explain how the 'kind' filter maps to catalog content, what 'query' does, or how this tool relates to sibling list/get tools, leaving an agent to infer important selection and usage details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the 'query' parameter at all, and only loosely aligns 'kind' with the mention of 'guides' and 'research'. The 'templates' and 'protocols' terms do not directly map to the enum values, leaving parameter meaning underspecified.

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 identifies the resource ('versioned catalog of setup guides, templates, protocols and research'). It clearly communicates that this tool finds/list resources, which separates it from 'get_resource' (singular fetch) by implying a search/listing behavior, though it does not explicitly name sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Search the versioned catalog' implies that the tool is for searching or listing resources, providing some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'get_resource' or 'list_tunings', and no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are given.

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