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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the appended 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive phrase is 'without running them', which confirms no execution or side effects occur, but nothing is said about result shape or query limits.

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 short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the optional filter trailing. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and only two flat parameters are involved. Still, with 0% schema coverage the description leaves 'domain' open (no examples) and says nothing about how many matches come back or how to act on them.

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. It does explain that 'domain' is an optional narrowing filter and loosely characterizes 'intent' as what the user wants to do, but it gives no format, example, or valid domain values for either parameter.

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?

Clear specific verb and resource: 'Find matching APIs and actions'. It also implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'invoke' via 'without running them', so an agent can distinguish search from execution, though the sibling is never named.

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 implied: use this to locate capabilities before executing anything, with an optional domain narrowing. It never states when not to use it or explicitly names 'invoke' as the follow-up alternative, so the agent must infer the search-then-execute workflow.

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