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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies matching logic (case-insensitive substring on name, tagline, or category) and the result cap of 20 results. This augments the structured safety hints without contradicting them.

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 a compact, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core action, then elaborates on matching behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has only one simple parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it matches, the result limit, and when to use it. There is no missing guidance for this straightforward 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 coverage is 100% for the single query parameter, and the description essentially restates the same meaning ('Free-text search term'). The description does hint that the query matches specific fields, but that's more about tool behavior than parameter semantics. The schema already provides a clear type and example, so the description adds minimal additional parameter insight.

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 clearly states it searches the AI Alt Finder catalog for AI tools by free-text query, matching on name, tagline, or category. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool (retrieves a specific tool) and list_alternatives (lists alternatives), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs to call this tool first when a user asks to find, discover, or compare AI tools by keyword, use-case, or category. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, slightly below the highest bar.

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