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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it explains the federated search behavior, that results include relevance scores and endpoints, and explicitly warns that the score is relevance-only, not a trust/safety rating. This is valuable caveat for an agent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states scope, the second states output, the third clarifies score meaning. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of 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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the caller receives: ranked matches, relevance score, endpoint, and registry provenance. Combined with the rich input schema and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description does not add per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, though the federated-search wording loosely reinforces the federate parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: it searches across an index plus every public ARD registry for callable capabilities. It also names concrete resource types and the return contents, distinguishing it from the more focused sibling find_tool.

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?

It gives a clear use context: when you need to find a callable capability for a task across multiple registries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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