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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: case-insensitive substring matching on specific fields, scope limited to 'live, published' tools, and a 'Returns up to 20 results' limit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with front-loaded primary action, followed by match behavior, result limit, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose, when to use it, matching behavior, scope, and result cap. The output schema removes the need to explain return values, so no meaningful gap remains.

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% and the query parameter already has a description. The tool description enriches the parameter semantics by clarifying exactly what the free-text query matches against ('tool name, tagline, or category name') and that matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, which goes beyond the schema's generic example.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Search the Alternativas IA catalog of live, published AI tools') and clearly defines the match targets ('tool name, tagline, or category name'). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Call this first when a user asks to find, discover, or compare AI tools', setting it apart from list/get/create tools.

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 says when to use the tool ('Call this first when a user asks to find, discover, or compare AI tools by keyword, use-case, or category') with examples. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the instruction to call it first provides strong situational guidance.

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