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

The description indicates a read-only search operation by using the verb 'Search' and listing output fields, implying no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately conveys the non-destructive nature, though it could explicitly state that no data is modified.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the action and resource, then provide usage motivation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, returned fields, and usage context. It lacks details on pagination or default limit behavior, but overall it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (limit with range, category as optional filter), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further detail about parameter behavior beyond what is in the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool searches a specific curated catalog of business tools, lists the fields returned (slug, name, category, etc.), and distinguishes itself from generic web search, making the purpose very specific and actionable.

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 explicitly advises using it to discover purpose-built tools for specific business problems as an alternative to generic web search, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not, however, list specific scenarios where it should not be used or directly compare with sibling tools.

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