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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-schema context: catalog breadth ('over a hundred exact tools'), the session-listing constraint, the domains covered, and that it is free. Return contents ('best matches with their arguments and cost') are noted even though an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and examples, then breadth, then the routing instruction, all without filler. The parenthetical domain list is dense but earns its place by hinting at searchable vocabulary.

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 discovery tool with a complete schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it searches, why it is necessary in this session, what comes back, and the follow-up action. No material gap remains.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and bounds. The description only implies query semantics via examples, adding little beyond the structured fields, 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+resource ('Find ToolForte tools by what you want done') and immediately grounds it with concrete example queries. It clearly distinguishes itself from the enumerated sibling tools, which are the leaf operations this search surfaces.

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?

Explains exactly when it is needed: 'a session lists a small core of them and this is how you reach the rest', and tells the agent what to do next ('call the tool by name, or through run_tool'). It does not contrast with describe_tool, the nearest sibling, so it falls just short of explicit alternatives.

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