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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the matching behavior (typo-tolerant, singular/plural, chatbot-aware), which provides additional transparency about how the search operates. The readOnly/idempotent hints are already covered by annotations and no contradictions exist.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and key features without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain parameter roles (e.g., what q expects, how limit and offset work, what category filters) or any output/pagination details, leaving significant gaps for correct usage.

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 schema has no descriptions and the parameter coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate by explaining any of the parameters (q, limit, locale, offset, category), leaving their semantics entirely undocumented.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('approved One AI Guide tools'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tool or list_tools by describing the search behavior (typo-tolerant, singular/plural, chatbot-aware).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool—when you need to find tools by query rather than fetching a specific tool or listing all. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state conditions for use, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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