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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a read-only search operation and mentions filtering and sorting, which is transparent enough for a safe operation. However, it does not disclose details like result format or pagination.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and covers the key aspects (search, filter, sort) with no redundant words.

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 tool is relatively simple with optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the operation and parameter roles, but it does not mention the return format or provide context on related tools, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It does: 'by name/URL' maps to q, 'filter by kind' maps to kind, and 'sort' maps to sort. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and enums.

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's purpose: searching a directory of reviewed agent services by name/URL, with filtering and sorting. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_service and get_verdict.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to choose it over get_service or get_verdict, or any exclusions.

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