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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that query matches against name, description, and tags, and that results include external url and canonicalUrl. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, or any potential rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality, filter behavior, and output fields. It lacks explicit pagination or error handling details, but the overall scope is well-covered 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description essentially restates what the schema already says (free-text substring matching and exact category filter), adding little new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool searches devrel.directory listings and enumerates the types of entities (tools, communities, newsletters, podcasts, agencies). The verb 'search' and resource are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like search_docs or list_events by explicitly naming the directory domain.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool—when searching directory listings—and explains the two filtering modes (free-text and category). However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the scope is well-defined relative to sibling tools.

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