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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: listings do not execute or pay for anything, and external paid APIs are separately labeled. This clarifies that search results are informational and non-actionable, which is important behavioral disclosure.

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 no wasted words. The core scope is front-loaded, followed by the key safety constraint, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple search tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is searchable and the no-execution/no-payment constraint. However, it omits any explanation of the query parameter and does not indicate result format or pagination, leaving gaps relative to the complexity of routing and invocation.

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 input schema has one optional query parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not mention the query parameter, its purpose, its format, or its 80-character limit. An agent receives no guidance on how to fill this parameter.

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 states a specific verb 'Find' and enumerates three resource types: public Basedworld creator offers, browser tools, and external paid APIs. This clearly distinguishes the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tools such as find_open_work or shopscout_source_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage implication is the verb 'Find', which is insufficient to route an agent among the eight sibling tools.

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