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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the return format (ranked list of name, project, summary, category) and explicitly noting that input schemas are NOT returned, helping the agent set expectations and plan subsequent calls.

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 tool's purpose and immediately followed by a useful next-step instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple discovery tool, the description covers the search scope, return contents (fields), and the critical limitation (no schemas). It also provides the recommended follow-up action, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use effectively without an output schema.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description including defaults, examples, and enumerated values. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, but the schema fully compensates, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('the Invokera catalog'), and clarifies scope ('across all projects'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns a ranked list without input schemas and directs to describe_tool for details.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call describe_tool next for the full schema and calling instructions, establishing a clear workflow. It does not mention invoke_tool or provide explicit exclusions, but the sibling context and the phrase 'Call describe_tool next' effectively guide when to use this tool.

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