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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses meaningful search behavior: matching is word by word, filler words are ignored, and partial matches return categories with a hint when no result matches every word. It also states that results are summaries with compact apps, which helps set expectations for the response.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what is searched, how matching works, what comes back, and what to do next. The examples are dense but each sentence carries useful selection or interpretation guidance.

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 annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It explains the return shape at a high level and the fallback behavior, but it does not describe result ordering or the exact structure of the compact app summaries.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful query semantics beyond the schema by explaining filler-word handling, word-by-word matching, and the 'apps like calm' category-ranking interpretation, though it does not add meaning for limit or made_for_iphone_duo beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource set: find categories by name or definition and apps by name. It distinguishes the search result from deeper retrieval by naming get_category and get_app as follow-ups, so the agent can tell it apart from sibling lookup 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 clearly implies when to use search: broad or word-by-word app/category discovery, with examples like 'best free ai companion' and 'apps like calm'. It also names get_category and get_app as follow-up tools, though it does not explicitly exclude or compare against siblings such as list_categories or find_alternatives.

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