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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'Filter by category', ignoring pagination, sorting, match modes, or output format. The agent learns little about side effects (likely read-only) or constraints beyond what the schema defines.

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?

Single sentence is efficient, front-loading the tool's scope. However, it omits critical details that could be included without bloating (e.g., a brief note on pagination or match logic).

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?

With 8 parameters (0 required) and no output schema, the description fails to cover pagination, sorting, match behavior, fields selection, or return format. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without external knowledge.

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 only 25% (q and tags have descriptions). The overall description adds no parameter explanation beyond 'Filter by category', which maps to the category enum. It does not clarify sort, match, page, limit, fields, or tags usage.

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 the tool covers 'the API vocabulary' and lists content types (resources, actions, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling find_* tools that target specific subdomains (e.g., find_areas, find_building_blocks). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'list', slightly obscuring the action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies generic filtering but does not help an agent decide, e.g., when to use find_vocabulary vs. find_tags. Exclusions and context are missing.

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