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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: case-insensitive substring matching, fields searched (name, tagline, category), and the 'returns up to 20 results' limit. This exceeds annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and matching behavior, second provides usage guidance and result limit. No fluff, all information front-loaded, and each clause adds value. Ideal conciseness.

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 (one parameter, read-only) and the description covers all essential aspects: what it searches, how it matches, when to use it, and the result limit. Given the high schema coverage and output schema exists, no additional context is needed.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter with a basic description. The tool description goes beyond that by detailing what the query matches (name, tagline, category in a case-insensitive substring), which enriches the parameter semantics. Fine for a one-param tool.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'KI Tools Catalog of live, published AI tools'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tool (exact retrieval) by specifying free-text query matching on name, tagline, or category, making the tool's purpose unique and clear.

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?

Clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first when a user asks to find, discover, or compare AI tools' — this sets priority. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., get_tool) for when not to use it, so it lacks explicit when-not/alternatives. There is no misleading guidance, but exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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