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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real value beyond them: it confirms the corpus is DataCrate360's *published* content (consistent with openWorldHint=false) and imposes an attribution behavior (cite the returned URL). It stops short of describing result shape, ranking, or pagination.

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, zero filler. Scope, input method, and the citation requirement are each front-loaded in the order an agent needs them.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the one downstream obligation (cite URLs). The only shortfall is that it doesn't characterize the result set or how many entries come back, which matters slightly given the undocumented limit.

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 50%: q and tool are documented, but kind and limit are not. The description reinforces q ("paste an error message") but says nothing about what distinguishes kind=fix from kind=guide or how limit behaves, so the gap on half the parameters is only partly offset.

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 a precisely scoped resource (DataCrate360's published Guides & Fixes), and even names the domain of tools covered (Snowflake, dbt, Airflow, Spark). It is distinguishable from get_fix by the search-vs-retrieve distinction, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

"Paste an error message or describe the problem" gives concrete input guidance, which implies this is the entry point before get_fix. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_fix or the list_* siblings, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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