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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, whether auth is needed, rate limits, or what the results contain. The only behavioral hint is the meaning of the 'usable' field, which is partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence covers the 'usable' field, which is useful, though its placement slightly interrupts the flow.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe the operation's safety profile and return structure. It only partly covers the 'usable' field and leaves the result format and behavioral traits undocumented, so it falls short for a 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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description echoes the query concept ('part of a family name') and category concept without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching a baseline 3.

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) and resource (Google Fonts) plus the searchable dimensions (family name, category). It references the sibling add_project_font, giving partial differentiation, though it doesn't fully contrast itself against related font 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?

It explains how to search (by name, category, or both) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions distinguishing it from add_project_font or list_library. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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