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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that results are filtered to brands that actually have community referral codes, and discloses a returned field (slug). It does not describe match semantics (exact vs partial/keyword ranking) or what an empty result looks like.

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 tight sentences, zero filler: the first defines the resource and scope, the second the return value and its downstream use. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned slug field, and it explains the domain filter. It leaves a small gap on result-set size/limit behavior and matching semantics, which matters because limit is undocumented in the 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 50%: query is documented with examples in the schema, while limit has no description at all. The description's category examples (banks, crypto, delivery, VPN) loosely reinforce the query's keyword nature, but it says nothing about limit's default of 8 / max of 20 or about search matching behavior. Baseline 3 for a half-documented two-parameter schema.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus resource (brands listed on Koddeo), with concrete category examples and the explicit constraint that only brands with community referral codes are returned. It also names the sibling tools it feeds into (get_company_codes, publish_code), so an agent can distinguish it from the code-retrieval tools without opening a schema.

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 tells the agent this is the discovery step whose output (the slug) is then used with get_company_codes or publish_code, giving a clear workflow context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, e.g. that it is not for listing codes directly or what to do on zero results.

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