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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the authorization scope and bounded result set. That is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, although 'bounded' and 'authorized source selection' are not explained concretely.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose before the alternative. It is efficient, though 'bounded authorized source selection' is jargon that could be replaced with clearer language.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and an alternative but leaves parameter meanings and result-set limits underexplained. Given 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate for what the schema omits.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'By text' weakly implies that q is a text query, but page is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent must infer its meaning.

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 clear verb and resource: find existing organization contracts by text. The purpose is understandable without opening the schema, though the phrase 'bounded authorized source selection' is vague and the alternative 'generic catalog' is not named precisely.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use the generic catalog for additional filters or deeper records, which gives a when-to-use-this-vs-alternative condition. The guidance would be stronger if the generic catalog tool were named and if exclusions for this tool were clearer.

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