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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool returns matching public records; it does not describe match semantics, ordering, pagination, result shape, or any side effects. The single behavioral detail it adds is the 'public records' scoping, but that is not enough to be transparent.

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 single tight sentence with no filler: it identifies the action, the resource, the search fields, and the result scope. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, though slightly under-specified in behavior, so it does not earn a 5.

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 low-complexity tool with only two documented parameters, the description is fairly complete. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, and the description does not clarify match behavior or result details, leaving moderate gaps for an agent deciding how to interpret the response.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters completely, including the case-insensitive fragment behavior for 'q' and defaults/maximums for 'limit'. With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no new semantic value but also does not need to.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('the aicoolies tool catalog'), and the matching criterion ('by name or slug'). It also clarifies that only public records are returned, which distinguishes it from tools that might return internal or administrative data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_tool, but the purpose is still clear.

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 implies a search/exploration use case: an agent should call this when looking up tools by name or slug fragment. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_tool or other sibling tools, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing. This is implied usage, not clearly guided.

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