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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds result-level behavior the annotations can't: matching services come back with category and status page, plus FlareWarden's own public status page when one exists. It stops short of describing match semantics (exact vs. partial) or empty-result behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger, return shape, and exclusion. The trigger is front-loaded, so an agent can decide on the first sentence alone, and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so concisely (matches + category + status page). For a single-parameter lookup tool with full annotation coverage, that is near-complete; only ambiguity around partial matching and no-match results remains.

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 100%, including an example value ('such as Stripe or AWS'), so the parameter is fully self-documenting. The description contributes only the indirect hint that matching is non-exact ('Returns matching services'), which is marginal added meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 services FlareWarden can watch') and frames the exact user intent it serves: 'whether FlareWarden can watch a third-party service their site depends on'. It enumerates concrete service kinds (payment provider, cloud, CDN, email, auth), which makes it instantly distinguishable from catalog-adjacent siblings like check_service_status.

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 trigger ('Use this when the user asks whether FlareWarden can watch...') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative named ('Not for whether a service is down now: use check_service_status'). That is the when/when-not/alternative pattern at full strength.

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