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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'citable references' rather than full records and points to `fetch` for expansion, which is useful context beyond the structured fields; it stops short of describing result volume or truncation behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler; the core capability leads and the disambiguation/next-step follows. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

A 2-parameter read-only search tool with rich annotations and an output schema needs only scope, alternatives, and a follow-up path — all present. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with both `query` and `platform` (including enum values and default) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or matching semantics beyond what the schema states, so 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 (keyword search) and the exact resources covered (five named stores), and contrasts itself with `fetch` for full records and `search_extensions` for filtered/paged results. An agent can pick this tool 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?

Explicit routing: use this for free-text keyword search, pass the returned id to `fetch` for the full record, and use `search_extensions` when install count, rating, category, publisher, recency, sorting, or paging matter. Both the alternative tool and the selecting condition are named.

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