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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful trait beyond the schema — that results include on-site ServerSearcher URLs and affiliate checkout URLs — but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, authentication, or rate limits, leaving notable gaps for a 21-parameter read tool.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource before the return-value note. Every clause 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 large multi-filter search with fully documented schema fields and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resources searched and the shape of the return (plan URLs). It falls short only in not clarifying pagination behavior or how results relate to the provider-comparison siblings.

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 schema already documents all 21 parameters with units, formats, and examples. The description only broadly gestures at the filter families (spec, location, price, capability) without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (dedicated, VPS, GPU and cloud server plans) and even enumerates the filter dimensions (specification, location, price, provider capability). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_providers or get_provider_info.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding server plans, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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