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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new facts: results include the matches with their arguments and cost, the call is free, and the answer is deterministic. It stops short of describing match ranking or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

The triggering condition and the catalog-size rationale come first, followed by examples and next steps. Slightly longer than needed — the sample-word list and the 'over a hundred exact tools' parenthetical overlap in function — but no sentence is filler.

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 two-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, this covers why it exists, when to reach for it, what to type, what comes back, and what to do next. An agent can use it correctly without consulting anything else.

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%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns extra by explaining the query is phrased as the job to be done rather than a tool name, and by giving six concrete example terms. The empty-query behavior is left to the schema rather than repeated.

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 and resource ('Find ToolForte tools by what you want done') and frames it as discovery over a catalog larger than the current tool list. This clearly separates it from siblings like describe_tool and run_tool, which operate on an already-known tool.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering condition ('when you need a ToolForte tool that is not in the current tool list') and the follow-up action ('call the tool by name, or through run_tool'). Sample queries ('iban', 'vat', 'pdf merge') show exactly what kind of input to supply.

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