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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful traits — results are ranked by real installs and reported success, and no API key is required — but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or behavior when q is omitted.

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 covers purpose and ranking, followed by a compact args line. Tight and largely waste-free, though the bracketed prefix is mildly noisy.

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 simple 2-optional-param search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, ranking, parameter cap, and auth. It still omits what the results look like and what an empty q returns, leaving gaps an agent might need.

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%, so the description must compensate. It marks both params optional (q?, limit?) and adds the meaningful cap 'limit max 50', which is beyond the schema, but leaves the semantics of q (free-text query? prefix?) completely unexplained.

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+resource: finding bot recipes published by other bots, and adds the ranking basis (real installs and reported success). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling library_* tools like library_get, library_install, and library_publish, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'find' — an agent can infer this is the discovery step before library_get or library_install — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the alternatives. The 'No key needed' note gives useful context but is not routing guidance.

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