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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavior ('include=["content"] inlines bodies') and hints at a filter ('PRO: scopes, security'), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination limits or rate limits. The 'PRO' line is cryptic and may confuse an agent. The description is not contradictory, but it leaves the safety profile implicit.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and differentiator, then follows with the type list and a brief note about 'include'. It is not overly verbose, but the 'PRO: scopes, security' line is cryptic and adds little without explanation. Still, the structure is efficient and the information density is reasonable.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent needs guidance on how to construct a query, handle pagination, and interpret results. The description only covers type enumeration and the 'include' option. It does not mention default behaviors (beyond schema defaults), sorting, or response format. The tool is complex enough that this level of incompleteness would likely lead to incorrect calls or confusing results.

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 only 13% (1 of 8 params). The description adds value by enumerating the valid 'type' values (mcp, skills, rules, etc.) and explaining the effect of 'include', but it does not explain 'q', 'tags', 'providers', 'limit', or 'page'. These parameters are simply left to their schema definitions, which lack descriptions. Given the low schema coverage, the description does not compensate enough for the missing parameter meanings.

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 opens with 'Find artifacts of ANY one type across the catalog — the cross-type entry point,' giving a clear verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly differentiates itself from the dedicated find_<type> siblings, naming several examples, which makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 states 'Each type also has a dedicated find_<type> tool ... prefer those when you know the type.' This gives explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, identifying the alternative category and the condition for choosing it. The agent is told to use this tool as the cross-type fallback.

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