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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no result ordering, no behavior on zero matches, no mention of the limit cap of 20 or the default of 10, and no indication of what a match record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why other dimensions suffer.

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 four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two enum-typed parameters, the description should explain the category filter, the language options and the result cap. None of that is present, leaving an agent to read the raw schema to call it correctly.

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 0% across four parameters. The sentence hints at 'query' (ID or name) and indirectly at 'lang' ('any supported language name'), but says nothing about the nine-value language enum, the 'category' filter with its eight buckets, or the 1–20 bounds on 'limit' — half the parameters are undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Search 163 objects') and names the match fields (ID or any supported language name), which is clear enough to distinguish it from get_object and compare_objects in spirit. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands just below the top mark.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (get_object for a known item, compare_objects for comparison). An agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the discovery step before a fetch.

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