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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a 25-match cap on results, the existence of 170 tools in 12 categories, and the fact that resources/utilities appear with their MCP entry point. It still doesn't say how matches are ranked or what happens to results beyond the cap.

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 opening sentence front-loads scope and size, and the closing pointer to describe_tool is well placed. The middle sentence ('Resources and utilities include availability and their MCP entry point') is grammatically awkward and slightly hard to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining results, and it does state the match cap and the kinds of entries returned. It is adequate for a single-parameter search tool, with the only real gap being result ordering and how truncation affects discovery.

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 query parameter's meaning and the empty-query behavior are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'up to 25 matches' is consistent but adds little the schema doesn't already convey.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search all 170 catalog tools across 12 categories, plus native MCP tools'), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_tools, which appears to overlap in function, leaving the agent to infer which to pick.

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 points forward to describe_tool for input schemas and implies keyword-based lookup, which is useful next-step guidance. But it never states when to use this versus list_tools or describe_tool, nor does it mention when-not to use it (e.g., for known tool names).

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