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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes beyond that by naming the exact result fields, which matters because there is no output schema, and by identifying the catalog as installable PWAs. It does not disclose default sort/limit behavior or result cap, leaving that 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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose and return shape front-loaded; nothing is buried. The trailing "Served by PWAMart (https://pwamart.com)" line is mildly redundant given the name already contains PWAMart, but it is a single low-cost sentence.

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 seven optional parameters, no required inputs and no output schema, an agent most needs to know what comes back and what the catalog is—both are supplied. The remaining gap is operational: default sort order, default limit, and whether results are paginated are undisclosed, which matters at a hard maximum of 50.

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 86% and three parameters carry enums with their own explanations, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning at all—no mention of sort semantics, limit defaults, or how 'offline' relates to 'feature'—so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Search the pwamart catalog of installable web apps (PWAs)" is a specific verb plus a precisely scoped resource, and it enumerates the returned fields (name, slug, summary, publisher, rating, installs, URL). It is clearly a discovery tool rather than a detail fetcher, though it never names the sibling that handles single-app lookup, so differentiation is inferred from context rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for finding apps before fetching one by slug. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus pwamart_list_categories or pwamart_get_app, and no guidance on result ordering or how to follow up on a hit.

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