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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful context: discovery is open while execution is API-key gated, and a last production probe reported grounded: true. This helps an agent understand access requirements and reliability without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the tool's identity and core purpose before adding access and filtering details. The opening sentence repeats the title, but the rest of the description earns its place without significant bloat.

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 two optional parameters, the rich output schema, and the annotations covering safety, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It even clarifies authentication expectations and the specific query-style filtering behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds light reinforcement by restating that ?category filters by family and ?slug returns one tool, but the schema already communicates these semantics; the added value is marginal.

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 defines the tool as a machine-readable catalog of all corpus-grounded acting tools, listing the exact information it exposes (name, category, inputs/outputs, use cases, URL, run method). It is distinguishable from every get_* sibling because it is the meta-catalog rather than a domain-specific 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?

The description gives explicit context for when to use it: discovery is open, execution is API-key gated, and ?category and ?slug provide filtering paths. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but for a catalog tool the usage boundary between discovery and execution is clearly implied.

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