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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency load. It discloses key behaviors: full-text stemmed BM25 search, ranking order (best-rated first), dead/costume-farm/walled servers sink, and each row's contents (verdict, cluster, distinctiveness, matching tool names). This goes well beyond a basic description, though it omits details like pagination or exact response format.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value: examples, search mechanics, output contents, ranking criteria. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details behavior. Slightly dense but not wasteful; appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns (each row carries verdict, cluster, distinctiveness, matching tool names), how results are ranked, and how to formulate queries. It gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further calls. The 6 parameters are all covered by the schema, and the description fills the gaps for the key 'need' parameter and the response structure.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enhances the primary 'need' parameter with examples and explains how the search interprets it ('your words need not appear in any tool's name'). It also explicitly names the argument ('Argument: need'), adding clarity beyond the schema. The other parameters are well-covered in the schema and need no extra elaboration.

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 states a specific verb + resource: 'Find and RANK the trustworthy tool for a NEED.' It explains full-text search over tool names and descriptions with BM25 ranking, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like check_server or list_findings. Concrete examples ('screen a company for sanctions', 'US tariff data') reinforce the purpose.

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 description gives clear usage instructions: describe the task in plain words, and explains that the search is full-text so exact tool names are not required. It also tells the agent when to pick from results ('you can pick without a second call') and how servers are ranked (alive, non-costume, current-protocol on top). It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use this tool, but the context implies it is the primary discovery mechanism.

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