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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not carry: it returns exact totals, only the first results (implying a bounded page with no pagination control), and a deep link to the same search on cdphub.com. Missing detail on how 'first results' is capped or whether an empty invocation is valid.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource, and facets, then the return shape, then the sibling routing. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 7-parameter, all-optional, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies precisely what is missing elsewhere: what is returned (totals, first results, external link) and which sibling to use instead. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 100%, so each of the 7 parameters, including enum values for runs, sort, group, and directions, is already documented. The description's mention of the searchable facets adds marginal framing but no syntax or behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (CdpHub's directory of CDP integrations) and enumerates the facets it searches on: keyword, CDP, category, direction, and run model. An agent can distinguish it from get_tool and check_stack without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the condition that selects them: get_tool for a single named tool, check_stack for a set. It does not address the other siblings (list_cdps, get_cdp, compare_cdps) or state when a plain browse without a query is appropriate, so routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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