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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload (taglines, pricing model, vote counts, canonical URLs). It omits limits, result count, pagination, and any auth/rate-limit notes, which matters for a search tool with no output schema.

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 resource and match fields, then returns, then usage. Only minor filler in 'the launch platform and tool directory built agent-first', which is more branding than orientation.

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, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers what it searches, what comes back, and when to reach for it. Sibling disambiguation and result-limit behavior are the remaining gaps, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the free-text query and its examples. The description's 'by name, tagline, or tag' restates roughly what the schema says, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 (toolfound.com SaaS/dev tools directory) plus the match fields (name, tagline, tag). Clear and unambiguous on its own. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like toolfound_get_product, toolfound_get_alternatives, or toolfound_find_by_task, whose territory ('compare', 'a tool for a job') it partially claims.

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?

Provides a when-to-use trigger ('when a user asks to find, compare, or discover a tool'), which is helpful context. But it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, and its 'compare'/'for a job' triggers overlap with get_alternatives and find_by_task, leaving the agent to guess which sibling wins.

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