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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include contact counts, which is useful, but it omits pagination behavior, result ordering, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resources, the search keys, and the returned count efficiently.

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 low-complexity read search, the description covers the core purpose and return content (contact counts), and annotations carry the safety profile. However, without an output schema, it leaves pagination behavior and match semantics (substring vs. exact) undescribed, creating minor but real gaps.

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 only 33%; only 'query' carries a schema description, and the tool description repeats 'name or domain' without adding syntax or examples. The 'page' and 'per_page' parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Find'), enumerates the exact resource types (newspapers, magazines, TV/radio stations, sites, podcasts), and names the search keys (name or domain). It is clearly distinguishable from search_contacts and the get_* siblings.

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 search keys imply use for outlet lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_contacts or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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