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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by disclosing the compact return shape, the existence of the modules_not_enabled bucket, and that empty results mean no authorised tools matched rather than no account data. It stops short of describing match ordering or relevance behavior, but the operational semantics an agent needs are present.

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?

The core capability and the follow-up workflow are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by edge-case handling for modules_not_enabled and empty results. Every sentence carries operational information; there is no restatement of the title or padding.

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?

For a two-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the call sequence, the return shape, the enable-module escape hatch, and the failure semantics of an empty result. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the response without further guessing.

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 both query and limit are already documented in the schema, including examples and the default/max for limit. The description adds only the 'by task, module, or direct tool name' framing for query, which is a modest increment over the schema's own examples, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Search the full authorised Raq.com MCP tool catalogue') and scopes it to three matching modes: task, module, or direct tool name. It implies the distinction from raq_get_tool_schema by naming that tool as the follow-up step, but never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling raq_search, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It prescribes an explicit two-step workflow: call raq_get_tool_schema for the selected tool, then use the gateway named in its call_with response. It also states what to do with modules_not_enabled (enable_module) and how to interpret an empty result, including the fallback diagnostic path through raq_get_tool_schema with account_id.

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