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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, which the description doesn't need to repeat. The description adds the return fields, useful context. But it says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/limit params, which is the main behavioral gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the search axes, then returns, then the follow-up routing. Every sentence 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?

Returns and follow-up are covered; the main omission is pagination semantics for page/limit and default page size, which an agent needs for a list tool. Otherwise complete for a simple read search.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains q (name substring) and category (slug from get_taxonomies), but page and limit are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Two of four params are 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (production companies) with the search axis (name substring via q, or category slug). Clearly distinguishes from search_productions by naming the entity searched.

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?

Explicitly says how to get valid category values (get_taxonomies) and names get_company as the follow-up for a company's productions, routing the agent across siblings. No ambiguity about when to use this versus the other tools.

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