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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are returned by id in a fixed order and are explicitly unranked, which materially changes how an agent should interpret and present results. It omits rate limits, result caps, and auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and corpus, then the return/ordering behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the description still adds the corpus and the unranked/fixed-order behavior. The only real gap is query-matching semantics, which is the one thing an agent most needs for this 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?

The single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies syntactic constraints (pattern, minLength 1, maxLength 200). The description does not explain matching semantics — keyword vs phrase, exact vs fuzzy, case sensitivity — which is exactly what an agent needs to formulate a query for a search tool.

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 ('Searches') plus the exact corpus covered (platform description, published answers per category, vendor catalog), which is far more precise than a bare 'search'. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_public_catalog or describe_platform by enumerating the corpus, but never names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 describes what is searched but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to fetch, get_public_catalog, or describe_platform, which also surface published content. An agent must infer from the corpus alone whether keyword search or a direct fetch is the right call.

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