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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned data (taglines, pricing model, vote counts, canonical URLs) and notes the URLs can be cited or opened, which adds useful context. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return value details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or repetition.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is searched, what is returned, and when to use it. It could mention pagination or sorting, but the core use case is covered. Sibling differentiation is also addressed through the search context.

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?

The input schema already provides a detailed description for the 'query' parameter (100% coverage), including examples. The tool description adds 'by name, tagline, or tag,' which aligns with the schema's 'product name, problem, or tag' but does not introduce new meaning or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches toolfound.com for SaaS products and developer tools by name, tagline, or tag, which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product or get_trending by emphasizing the search/discovery use case.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks to find, compare, or discover a tool for a job,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the usage context is strong enough to differentiate from siblings.

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