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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that results are ranked, carry a verdict with reasoning, and reflect console-starred favorites (marked favorite: true and duplicated under favorites). It also states the call is free. Remaining gaps are minor: no note on how limit interacts with ranking or on latency.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that opens with the action, then the return shape, then the free/favorites behavior — every clause carries information. It is slightly dense, and enumerating return fields overlaps with the existing output schema, but nothing is wasted.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what comes back, so an agent can invoke it correctly. The one missing piece is workflow placement relative to procli_run and procli_inspect, which matters in a seven-tool server.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 1–50 bound on limit. The description reinforces query semantics with plain-words phrasing and examples but adds nothing about limit's effect on ranking or truncation; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource — "Searches the ProLevelMax catalog of data sources" — and immediately grounds it with plain-language query examples ("reddit comments", "amazon reviews"). An agent can tell this is a discovery/search tool rather than a run/inspect tool, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the entry point before calling procli_run, but the description never says "use this first to find a source ID" or names an alternative like procli_inspect. The only explicit usage-adjacent signal is "Free", which hints at a cost consideration but doesn't route the agent.

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