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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context: exact-match filters exclude unknown values, results carry source URLs and unconfirmed fields, output is not ranked, and pagination is offset-based with a 10-result ceiling. That goes meaningfully beyond the annotation set.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, filter semantics, return caveats, result limits), with the scope statement front-loaded. Dense but not padded.

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 9-param read-only search with no output schema, the description covers types, filter exactness, result nature (URLs, unconfirmed fields, unranked), and pagination limits. The main omission is routing guidance relative to the sibling tool.

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?

With 56% schema coverage across 9 params, the description adds a useful model by separating 'keywords' (query) from 'explicit facts' (exact filters) and restating the unknown-value exclusion rule. It still leaves platform and category semantics to the schema and largely restates what individual property descriptions already say for free_plan/account_needed/japanese_support.

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 (Search) and resource (published JPFreeSoft entries), plus the searchable types (software, ai_tool). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_catalog_entry, so an agent must infer that this tool searches while the sibling fetches a single entry.

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 useful context cues ('exact filters exclude unknown values', 'results are not ranked recommendations'), which imply this is a lookup tool rather than a recommender. However, it never names get_catalog_entry or states when to use search versus fetching a specific entry.

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