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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: separate sponsored/organic arrays, pinned and flagged sponsored placements, coming-soon placeholders, and explicit rate limits (60/hour, 300/day) and no-API-key access. This is rich, though the rate-limit detail is operationally the most valuable and slightly buried at the end.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and enforcement points, and every clause carries operational information. However, the TerraMCP/Wrench AI branding sentence and some return-format detail add length without helping invocation decisions.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well: describes paginated summaries, default/max page sizes, separate sponsored and organic arrays with pagination, and pinned/placeholder behavior. Combined with the 12-param schema, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 all 12 parameters are already documented. The description restates the query/use_case/audience substring matching and location_hints behavior, which mostly duplicates the schema rather than adding new syntax or 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (curated source summaries) plus the discovery scope, and positions itself as 'the recommended starting point' versus get_source. An agent can distinguish this from top_sources and get_source 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?

Explicitly routes: use this for discovery, then 'use get_source for full evidence and enrichment'. Also covers the edge case that unmatched queries return suggestions, so the agent knows not to treat zero hits as failure.

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