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

The readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false annotations already establish this as a safe, closed-world lookup, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful framing (it searches MCP servers, CLIs and workflows) but says nothing about result size, pagination, or what happens when no filter matches.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, filters, and the sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 should convey enough for correct invocation, and it does cover purpose, filters, and how to obtain valid app keys for a read-only search. It stops short of describing the return shape or how results are ordered, a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names app key, setup difficulty, price, DaVinci Resolve edition, and free-text query, mapping to five of six parameters and clarifying the resolve_edition semantics. The limit parameter is not addressed in either place, leaving one small gap.

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 ('Find') plus resource with concrete examples ('AI agent tools (MCP servers, CLIs, workflows) for video and motion apps'). It also names the sibling list_apps for valid app keys, distinguishing this search tool from the app-listing tool without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the filtering options and explicitly routes the agent to list_apps to obtain valid app keys, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, mention when to use get_tool instead for fetching a specific result, so routing among all siblings is incomplete.

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