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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them — that results carry api ids, coverage summaries and price per record, and that the search itself is free — but says nothing about result ordering, limits on the open-world search, or behavior on zero matches.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape, then the cost. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly spends its words describing what comes back (ids, coverage, price per record) and notes the cost. For a two-parameter search tool that is close to sufficient; a note on how to act on returned ids would make it complete.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by demonstrating the expected query style with three real keyword examples rather than just the schema's bare 'Keywords.' The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Find') plus a concrete resource ('Pushbuild data APIs') and three example queries that pin down what kind of search this is. It implies adjacency to describe_api/call_api by saying results include 'api ids', but never names the siblings, so differentiation is only inferred 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?

The examples ('campaign contributions texas', 'restaurant inspections', 'sec 13f') make the intended entry-point usage clear by implication. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no guidance on following up with describe_api or call_api once an id is found.

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