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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the default tool set is small, results can be an index or full definitions including input_schema, and the default limit of 5 for queries. It does not describe pagination or the exact response shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the three usage modes. The phrase 'one lookup away' is slightly promotional but the surrounding enumeration of capability areas is informative rather than filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so at a high level (index of tool names vs. complete definitions including input_schema). For a zero-required-parameter discovery tool this is nearly complete, though the exact response structure is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning the schema does not: no arguments yields the full index, 'query' performs a search, and 'names' returns complete definitions. It does not mention the limit parameter's cap or interaction with query, so it is not fully additive.

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 ('Discover the rest of the BlackOps tool catalog') and immediately explains why it exists: the connector surfaces only a small default tool set. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like 'search' or 'fetch' because it operates on tool definitions, not content.

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?

Gives explicit invocation modes: no arguments for the full index, 'query' to search, 'names' for complete definitions, and then 'invoke any of them with use_tool'. This names the follow-up alternative (use_tool) and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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