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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what each result carries (license, commercial_use derived from SPDX, install info as the source states it, source repo) and by setting a behavioral constraint against installing without approval — valuable since there is no output 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 tightly packed sentences with no filler: the first defines the corpus searched, the second defines the result payload and the approval constraint. It is front-loaded with the action and leaves nothing redundant.

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 output schema, the description responsibly explains what each result contains, which is the main gap a caller would otherwise have. It stops short of covering the lang filter's skip behavior or limit semantics, but the schema handles those, so the definition is essentially complete for a 5-param 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 80%, so the schema already documents query, kind, lang and commercial_use. The description's only semantic addition is that commercial_use derives from the SPDX license, which is largely repeated in the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and enumerates the resource types covered (MCP servers, Claude Code plugins, skills, hand-picked agent tools), which is far more informative than the title. It implicitly separates discovery from the sibling get_tool's retrieval role, but never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

'Suggest tools to the user; never install without approval' gives workflow guidance on how to act on results, which is useful. However, there is no stated condition for choosing this over get_tool or check_skill, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative dimension is only implied by the word 'Search'.

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