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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that sponsored placements are excluded from the ordering — which is not visible in annotations or schema. It says nothing about result ordering semantics for the sort enum, relevance behavior, or how the filters combine.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste and the ranking-integrity caveat front-loaded right after the core statement. The brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification for an 8-parameter search tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a multi-parameter search endpoint needs at least a note on how query and filters interact and what ordering the sort values produce. None of that is present, leaving the definition incomplete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is only 38% across 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter guidance at all. Sort, query, use_case, integration, and pricing_model are undocumented in both places, so the thin description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Search published GTM tools'. It is implicit but not explicit how this differs from get_gtm_tool (single fetch) or compare_gtm_tools (comparison), so the sibling differentiation 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 description gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among a large sibling set that includes get_gtm_tool, compare_gtm_tools, and search_gtm_knowledge. An agent must infer from the tool name alone whether to search first or fetch a specific tool by id.

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