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 genuinely new behaviour: results are read live from each service, ranking prioritises name and title matches, and the list is capped at a default of 50. It does not describe pagination or failure modes.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the blocking prerequisite front-loaded before the search behaviour, so an agent hits the critical gate first. It is slightly run-on but every clause carries 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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the auth gate, the source of results, ranking logic and the default limit. Return-value shape is the only notable omission, and the ranking/limit notes partly compensate.

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 only 20% (session alone is documented), so the description has to carry the rest and does: q accepts words or a whole sentence and drives word-based ranking, service narrows to one service, include_available previews enableable services, and limit defaults to 50. Only the session parameter is left to the schema, and no accepted values or format for service are given.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the tools of your enabled services (read live from each service)'. It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like datailo_enable or datailo_invoke, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbours such as datailo_describe or datailo_tool_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?

It gives an explicit precondition and the alternative path for it: 'call datailo_connect(email) and datailo_connect_verify first ... unless this connection is already signed in'. It also explains the purpose of the service and include_available switches. It stops short of saying when to prefer this search over datailo_catalog or datailo_describe.

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