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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that results carry scores plus 'what matched', which is meaningful return-shape context. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or cost, which are the practical behaviors an agent needs before issuing a broad keyword query.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return shape, then the caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no 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?

For a one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers scope, return contents, and matching mechanism, which is nearly enough to call it confidently. Missing pagination and result-count behavior is the only notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is already documented with an example, so the baseline applies. The description adds the key semantic nuance that matching is lexical rather than semantic, which informs query construction, but adds no format, length, or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 ('keyword search over the directory catalog') and enumerates the searched fields (names, descriptions, tags, criteria marks), so the mechanism is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_listing or compare_tools, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

The closing sentence 'This is keyword matching, not semantic search' usefully constrains how to phrase a query and warns against paraphrase-style semantics. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as get_listing for a known item or compare_tools for side-by-side evaluation, so routing is only implied.

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