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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the omit-query browsing behavior, but says nothing about result ordering, relevance ranking, or how limit interacts with paging.

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 no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the optional-filter and browse-mode details. Every clause carries usable information.

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 four-optional-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, the filter axes, and the no-query mode. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering, but that is a minor omission given the low complexity and full annotation coverage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between query and category (omitting query makes category an exhaustive listing rather than a filter), and by characterizing category/open_source as optional filters.

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 (Search) and resource (Agent Stack Directory of AI agent infrastructure tools), plus the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_tool (single retrieval), compare, and list_categories without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: 'Omit query to list every tool in a category,' which covers a browse-mode use case an agent would otherwise have to guess. It does not, however, name when to prefer get_tool or compare over search, so no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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