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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('API-backed tools only') and routing behavior, though it does not describe result format or search behavior in more detail.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core scope and routing preference front-loaded. Every sentence carries actionable 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?

The description sufficiently covers routing, scope, and safety context; annotations already cover read-only behavior, and an output schema exists for return values. Remaining parameter details are largely handled by the schema, so an agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 67%: query and category are well documented in the schema, while limit relies on min/max constraints without a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Advanced catalog search') and adds a clear scope constraint ('API-backed tools only'). It distinguishes the tool from high-level siblings by positioning it as the route for finding a specific operationId, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_categories or search_provider_operations.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: prefer plan_task → run_playbook / solve_task for ship, SEO, and security jobs, and use this only when a specific operationId is needed. This states both when to use the tool and when to prefer alternatives.

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