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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds genuinely useful behavior: an empty query lists everything of a kind, and guessed drawing tool ids are refused. Together these go beyond schema and annotations to explain operational quirks.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The first sentence establishes scope, the second covers usage rules and the empty-query affordance. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a read-only catalogue search with only 3 params, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, the empty-query behavior, a failure mode, and the exact scope of what will be returned. Annotations supply the safety profile Token. No output schema is present, but the description hints at output contents sufficiently for an agent to decide call validity.

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?

Two of three parameters (limit, query) already have schema descriptions, and the description reinforces the meaning of 'query' by stating empty query lists everything of a kind. The 'kind' parameter lacks a schema description, but the description inlines its allowed values anyway ('indicators, formula functions, built-in strategies, ... drawing tools'). This compensates for the uncovered enum.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Search' and enumerates the concrete resources: indicators, formula functions, built-in strategies, extra series in strategy expressions, and drawing tools with their anchor counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like catalog_describe and drawing_add by naming exactly what the catalogue contains.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this before assuming something does or does not exist — and always before drawing.' It also supplies a consequence ('a drawing tool id you guessed is refused') and explains how to list everything of a kind with an empty query. This gives an agent an unambiguous decision rule for when to invoke this tool.

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