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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as that results are 'ranked slim results' from a 'verified' directory, which informs the agent about result characteristics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, filter/sort capabilities, return type, and a practical tip. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, with no wasted 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?

Given 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behaviors: filters, sort options, return type ('ranked slim results'), and a best-practice combination. It could be more explicit about result fields or pagination, but the mention of 'slim results' and the existence of get_tool for details makes it reasonably complete.

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%, with each parameter already described (e.g., sort enum, tier enum, limit). The description merely restates the filter/sort options and adds a usage tip ('category + sort=score') but no new parameter-level semantics. 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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'the verified GTM-tools directory'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like compare_tools (comparing tools) and get_tool (retrieving a single tool) by focusing on discovery with filters and sorting.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching the directory with various filters and sorts. It also gives a concrete usage example ('Use category + sort=score for best in category'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., when you need full details of a single tool), so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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