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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions key behaviors like filtering by q/tags/providers and that include=["content"] inlines bodies, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, default match logic, or other operational details. Some transparency but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the resource type and purpose, then filters and alternative. No waste, every phrase earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool having 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers only the core filter options and one behavioral detail (include). It omits pagination, match semantics, version usage, and expected response structure, leaving the agent under-informed for a fairly complex find tool.

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 low (44%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the include parameter (inlines bodies) not present in the schema, and reiterates q/tags/providers, but leaves many parameters (page, limit, match, context) undescribed in both schema and description. Partial compensation for the gaps.

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 clearly states the tool finds AsyncAPI (event-driven) specifications, specifies the resource type and scope, and distinguishes it from find_artifacts by noting that find_artifacts is for cross-type search. This is a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly names find_artifacts as an alternative for cross-type search, giving the agent a clear condition for when to use this tool vs. another. It implies this tool is only for AsyncAPI spec type, providing basic routing guidance.

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