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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are ranked, and results are paginated via cursor. It stops short of describing ranking factors or result shape, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is a solid contribution.

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 purpose, then usage/alternative, then an example. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, filtering, pagination, and the sibling alternative; it omits only secondary details like ranking behavior and result ordering, which is acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents each facet, making the baseline 3. The description goes slightly further by grouping the facets into a coherent narrowing list and supplying a concrete invocation example ({query, technology, limit}) that shows how filters combine.

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+resource ('Ranked search over Tangent's catalogue of design and design-engineering resources') and enumerates the content types covered. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_inspiration, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a positive condition ('when you know roughly what you want') and an explicit alternative for the contrasting case ('For a whole brief, use find_inspiration'). It also names the narrowing facets, so the agent knows how to constrain the search.

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