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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the catalog content and the important behavioral trait that the two downstream call tools are mutually exclusive by operation kind. It does not mention result limits or pagination, so not a 5.

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 what is searched, then the return shape, then the usage condition and examples in three tight sentences. Minor slack remains in the em-dash aside about screens/actions, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: operation identifiers, their arguments, and the tool that executes them. It omits result-set size limits and what happens on an empty match, which is a modest gap for a discovery tool.

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 the schema already documents the single optional query substring filter. The description only echoes that with the phrase "Search by word" and extra examples, adding flavor but no syntax or matching-rule detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific verb (search) and resource (every screen and action in the app not covered by a dedicated tool), and specifies the exact return shape: "controller#action" plus arguments plus the tool that runs it. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling call_read_operation / call_write_operation, which this tool is upstream of.

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 states the selecting condition explicitly ("Use it when no dedicated tool fits") and routes the follow-up: call_read_operation for reads, call_write_operation for writes, each refusing the other kind. Concrete query examples ("export", "sync", "member") show how to invoke it when the exact name is unknown.

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