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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope context beyond that: results are limited to 'finished' (published/reviewed) presets and to a single supported language at a time, which an agent needs to interpret the result set.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the discovery scope front-loaded and the follow-up call placed second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description at least signals that results carry a slug usable downstream, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It doesn't sketch the remaining result shape or how pagination totals surface, which is a modest gap for a 5-parameter search tool.

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 60%; query, offset and the locale enum are already documented in the schema, and 'in one supported language' only restates the locale parameter without enumerating values or explaining single-locale matching behavior. Limit and category get no added meaning from the description.

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 and resource ('Search the finished Octo Thinks decision-preset catalogue') and immediately distinguishes the sibling's role by saying the returned slug goes to get_octothinks_preset for full detail. An agent can tell the discovery tool apart from the fetch tool without opening either 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?

The second sentence gives a clear routing rule: search here for discovery, then call get_octothinks_preset with the returned slug for full content. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when not to search, or how to browse without a query), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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