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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'live' inventory context and explicitly excludes transaction-like behaviors, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two focused sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently clarifies boundaries. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no explanation of mode or limit, an agent may not know how results vary across modes or how to control result volume. It is sufficient for basic selection but lacks detail for optimal invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters (query, mode, limit). It only implies 'query' via 'Search' and says nothing about mode's enum semantics or the limit constraint, leaving agents to infer parameter meaning from names alone.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('live SCRIPTMASTERLABS SqueezeOS capability inventory'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that compare, inspect, or recommend capabilities. The explicit negation of purchase/sign/settle/execute further sharpens its scope.

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?

States what the tool does not do (purchase, sign, settle, execute paid capabilities), giving a clear when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those paid operations or for other capability-related queries, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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