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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the call is free, results are best-first, each result carries parameters and credits and a working call, docs links are appended for docs/code queries, and the not_offered failure mode is explained. Rate limits and result paging are not disclosed.

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?

Purpose and result contents are front-loaded, which is good, but the prose is dense and run-on ('Find what can be called by what it does, in plain words, English or Chinese: ...'). The colon-chained clauses make it harder to scan than it needs to be, and the not_offered instruction is buried at the end.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains the return payload (actions, parameters, credits, a call, docs links) and the not_offered edge case. That covers what an agent needs in order to call it and interpret results. It is slightly short of complete because default/limit behavior and any result-size limits are left unmentioned.

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% and each of limit, query, and platform is documented in the schema. The description adds meaning the schema does not: that query accepts plain English or Chinese. limit and platform are left entirely to the schema, which already handles them.

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: it finds callable capabilities/ops by what they do, returning matching actions with their parameters, credits per call, and a working call. That is concrete and distinct from sibling tools like call or account. It never names a sibling it is not (e.g. capabilities, search), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 context is implied ('Find what can be called by what it does') plus guidance on a downstream situation: when not_offered appears, tell the user and do not pass off the closest calls as what was asked. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. the siblings (capabilities, search, call is right there in the list).

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