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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the returned fields ('use-case slug, title, description, and page URL') and the relationship to dedicated pages. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior but 'search' implies it; lacks details on pagination or rate limits, which keeps it from 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?

The description is well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The 'Use this tool when' list is concise and the combined mention of search_skills is relevant. It is appropriately sized for the information needed.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, schema covers them), and the description provides return fields, usage conditions, and sibling relationship. Without an output schema, listing returned fields helps. Minor omissions like pagination are not critical for this 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?

The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and examples, providing 100% coverage. The description adds context by framing 'query' as a task/goal description, but no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Search 1,000+ AI agent use-cases by task or goal description.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('use-cases'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_skills by focusing on goals/workflows rather than tool names, mentioning to 'Combine with search_skills.'

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?

The description provides explicit guidance with 'Use this tool when:' and lists three concrete scenarios (goal/workflow description, asking 'how do I use AI for X', showing what tasks AI can help with). It also directs users to combine with search_skills for specific tools, clearly differentiating use cases.

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