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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds useful context that this is a discovery/catalog lookup rather than a live-data query, but it says nothing about result volume, pagination, ranking, or whether an empty match is common — the operational traits an agent would still want.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then the usage trigger, then the sibling handoff. No filler, no repetition of the title, and each sentence changes what the agent would do.

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 four-optional-parameter, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, and next step adequately. The remaining gap is return-shape expectations (how many results, ranking, what an empty result means), which matters slightly more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 all four parameters (keywords, intent_tags, entity_types, industry_tags) are already documented, including the default for entity_types and the industry-tag inclusion/ranking rule. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema is doing all the work here.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search Telerivet's Skillbook") and enumerates exactly what is searched: solution patterns, services, campaign types, platform features, message templates, and integrations. It also states the Skillbook's scope ("what can be built on Telerivet and how to set it up") and explicitly separates itself from skillbook_get, so an agent can distinguish it from the detail-fetch sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit call trigger ("Call this before recommending Cloud Script or custom code — native services and solution patterns cover most use cases") and names the follow-up alternative ("Use skillbook_get for full details on any result"). The when-to-use and the escalation path are both spelled out rather than implied.

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