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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuine behavioral detail not in the annotations: which fields are matched (name, description, kind, id, category, tag) and that results carry the directory page URL. The limit cap is restated but also stated in the 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 tight sentences with the searchable scope front-loaded. The final sentence about the limit cap partially duplicates the schema, costing a little, but nothing is buried or wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description at least discloses that results include the directory page URL and what fields are matched. It stops short of describing result ordering, pagination, or the remaining result shape, but it is sufficient for a simple three-parameter search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented there. The description's only parameter addition is repeating the 25-result cap, which is already in the limit schema description, so it adds little beyond baseline.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Search the bundled Agent Swipe File catalog') and an explicit list of the fields matched. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_resource by being the matching/search operation, though it never names the sibling to contrast with.

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 implied by the 'search by ...' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer get_resource / list_categories / list_recent instead. The agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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