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

The annotations already establish safe, read-only, idempotent behavior, and the description adds site-like ordering, a newest-first default, and cursor-based pagination. Telling the agent to pass the returned `next_cursor` as `cursor` is actionable, although much of this operational detail is also present in the schema.

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 compact sentences front-load the non-search browsing use case, then cover ordering and pagination without filler. The wording is dense but clear, and each clause supports selection or invocation.

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?

Together with the rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficient to make a correct first call and retrieve subsequent pages despite the absence of an output schema. Explicit sibling routing and a brief indication of what each result contains would improve completeness, particularly because only `next_cursor` is named from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, already documenting every filter, enum, default, limit, locale, and cursor. The description usefully frames the filters as optional and connects the pagination workflow, but adds little parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline applies.

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 title supplies the AI-tool resource, while the description specifies browsing the directory with optional category, tag, listing-type, and pricing filters. “Without a search text” meaningfully distinguishes this browsing operation from search_tools rather than merely restating the tool name.

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 clearest selection cue is to use it for browsing without search text, optionally applying faceted filters. It does not explicitly route keyword queries to search_tools or clarify when new_tools is preferable, so the guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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