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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds useful behavioral context: the result cap of 20 matches and the inclusion of a total count. It does not describe pagination beyond that cap or any rate limits, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then the input constraint, then the output shape. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter read-only search, the description covers the resource, the input constraint, and the return behavior (up to 20 matches plus a total count) even without an output schema. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the single parameter 'q' already documents its minLength in the schema. The description repeats 'Query must be at least 2 characters' without adding syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FilmLab universe catalog of AI tools, news and companies'), which no sibling tool duplicates. An agent can identify this as the catalog-search tool without opening the 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?

The description gives constraints (min 2 characters, up to 20 results) but no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternatives among the many lab_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is for catalog lookup rather than, say, lab_wissen or lab_dossier.

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