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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the auth requirement, both accepted header formats, the exact free-tier rate limit (20 calls/day), and that Pro-only fields are hidden on free keys. It also previews the returned fields (visits, MoM, organic share, DR, registration date, confidence).

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?

Front-loads the core search scope and return fields before the auth/logistics tail, with no filler sentences. The trailing auth URL and rate-limit clause make it slightly heavier than strictly necessary, but every element is useful.

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 7-param, no-output-schema tool it covers the essentials: what is searched, what comes back, auth and quotas. Sorting/ordering of results and pagination beyond the limit cap are not addressed, which is a minor gap given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 100%, so the schema already defines every filter bucket and enum. The description's restatement of the filter set and the keyword targets adds little beyond the schema, and no bucket boundary values are clarified beyond the schema's enums.

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 (Search) plus a precisely scoped resource ('the current monthly board of new AI tool sites') and enumerates the query dimensions (domain/name/description) and filter axes. An agent can distinguish it from get_site (single site) and top_rising (ranking) 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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right tool (searching the current monthly board by keyword/filters) and routes the agent to list_categories for valid slugs. It stops short of naming when to prefer top_rising or revenue_signals instead, so no explicit exclusions are stated.

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