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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the types of documents searched (studio profiles, buyer guides, ranked lists, statistics page), the citable result format, and the relationship with the 'fetch' tool. However, it does not disclose potential limits like result count or ordering, so it falls short of 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output format, followed by a concise alternative and next-step instruction. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the key behavioral aspects: what it searches, what it returns, how to use results, and when to use an alternative. No significant gaps remain for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'query' already has an excellent schema description with examples. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. The tool description adds context about the result format but does not add meaning to the query parameter beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search this game development outsourcing directory and return matching documents' with specific document types listed and a concrete output format ('{id, title, url} results'). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'search_studios' by noting that the latter should be preferred for structured studio fields.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Prefer "search_studios" when you need structured studio fields such as services, engine or country.' Additionally, it instructs the next step: 'Pass the id of any result to "fetch" to read it in full.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives and how to proceed with results.

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