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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content context by enumerating the returned attributes, including liveness/active status, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or size of the result.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary output ('the collections the live search queries') and then enumerates secondary attributes. No filler, though the phrasing 'the collections the live search queries' is slightly convoluted and would read better as a colon-separated list of returned fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the four kinds of information returned, which is enough for an agent to decide whether to call it. Gaps remain around result shape (flat list vs. per-source object) and ordering, but these are minor for a simple read-only listing tool.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (visitor_name) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter — appropriately so, since it notes no name is needed for reading — and the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('List') and a specific resource (the collections the live search queries), plus the attributes returned: what each is good for, material types served, and active status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling listing tools such as list_open_collections or list_styles, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to consult when it wants to know which sources the live search actually covers and which are currently active. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative for the closely related listing siblings.

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