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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the return payload is compact name/category/summary with NO input schemas, which tells the agent what it will and won't get back. It stops short of stating result-count behavior or pagination, which keeps it off 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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the value prop is front-loaded, the return shape is spelled out, and the follow-up workflow is last. Zero filler.

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?

There's no output schema, so the description must explain the return value — and it does (compact descriptors, no schemas). Combined with 100% parameter coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and chain into get_tool_schema.

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 100%, so query, category, and limit are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces that query is free-text and category filters, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('find the right tool') plus its distinguishing value proposition — avoiding loading every schema into context. It clearly separates itself from schema-bearing siblings like get_tool_schema and capabilities by declaring it returns compact descriptors only.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step workflow: filter with `query`/`category`, then call get_tool_schema(name) for the chosen tool and run it with tools/call. The alternative (get_tool_schema) is named along with the condition that selects it, so nothing is left to inference.

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