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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add contextual behavior. It adds the 'Scope: quote' constraint and query example, but it does not describe what the search returns, whether results are limited, or any other runtime behavior.

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 description is extremely compact, using two short sentences with no filler. The action, resource, query example, and scope are all front-loaded efficiently.

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 single-parameter read-only search tool, the core usage is reasonably covered by the schema and annotation. However, with no output schema, the description should at least imply return shape or result semantics; it does not, leaving a real gap.

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?

The schema already covers q fully with 'Name, synonym or key fragment', so baseline is 3. The description's ?q=sofa only gives a concrete example; it adds minor reinforcement but no substantial new semantic meaning.

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 description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'cube-sheet catalog', and adds a concrete query example. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_cube_sheet_csv, but its search-oriented purpose is still readily identifiable.

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 scope 'quote' gives some contextual direction, and the example ?q=sofa implies usage for searching by name/synonym/key fragment. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_catalog over related tools or mention any exclusions.

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