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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (slugs, titles, trust levels, risk levels, URLs, related lessons), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 dense sentences with the verb and search domain front-loaded, an illustrative parenthetical, then the return shape and the follow-up tool. No filler sentences.

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 correctly compensates by listing return fields and the downstream tool. The main remaining gap is that the optional filters (agent, category, min_trust) are not described here, though the schema documents them.

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 80%, so the baseline is a 3, but the description adds navigation value by showing the plain-words query phrasing ('cancel subscriptions from email receipts') that the query parameter expects. The agent/category/min_trust filters remain schema-only, keeping this below a 5.

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 (searches) and resource (playbooks in the Agents Handbook) and narrows scope with a plain-word examples of the query shape. It also distinguishes itself from get_playbook by noting the returned slugs feed into that sibling.

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 makes clear this is the discovery entry point whose slugs are consumed by get_playbook, which gives an agent a usable workflow. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or distinguishing itself from siblings like get_lessons or get_agent.

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