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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds that results are matched 'exact'-ly against a published contract, which is useful context, but it says nothing about what happens on zero matches, how results are ordered, or how the limit interacts with result volume.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and the specific artifacts returned. Nothing needs trimming and nothing obvious is buried.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return shapes. It is nearly complete for that complexity level, missing only minor details such as limit behavior and empty-result handling.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the 'query' parameter is already documented in the schema as accepting endpoint path, HTTP method, operation ID, resource, or task, and the description largely restates that list rather than extending it. The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and a concrete resource set: REST methods, paths, operation IDs, response codes, and endpoint summaries from the published OpenAPI contract. That is far more informative than the title alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_docs, leaving the agent to infer that this one targets the API contract rather than prose documentation.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'exact ... in the published OpenAPI contract', which suggests a precise lookup task rather than open-ended exploration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternatives read_doc or search_docs, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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