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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds content-scope context, that the index covers curated AI tools for leaders and also job guides. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when the query matches nothing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the examples are compact. The parenthetical '(and job guides)' slightly interrupts the flow but costs no real space.

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 three-parameter search with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema, it never indicates whether results are tools, job guides, or both in one list, which leaves result interpretation ambiguous.

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 67% and the description only adds example values for the required query parameter. It supplies no guidance on the optional category slug format or how limit interacts with result size, so it does not compensate for the uncovered schema gaps.

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 (Coghelm's curated AI tools plus job guides) and supplies example queries, so the agent knows it is a keyword retriever rather than a recommender. It does not explicitly name siblings like recommend_tools or get_tool, so the boundary with those is left to inference.

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 examples ('meeting notes', 'grant writing', 'slides') imply this is for exploratory keyword lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion against recommend_tools (recommendation) or get_tool (single known tool). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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