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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are event channels, that filtering by q/tags/providers works, and that include=['content'] inlines bodies. But it omits pagination behavior, default limits, match semantics, protocol filtering, and response shape, so coverage is only partial.

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 two punchy sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, then lists filters and the alternative tool with no filler. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It clarifies the primary filters and one include option but leaves pagination, match mode, protocol, and result format unexplained. An agent could still call it, but would miss important call options.

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 at 44%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the include parameter ('inlines bodies') and confirms providers is a filter, but it does not explain page, limit, match, or protocol. The description covers some parameters but leaves several undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'AsyncAPI event channels across the catalog' and clarifies they are individual channels (topics/streams). This clearly distinguishes the tool from broad artifact search and related siblings like find_artifacts, giving the agent an unambiguous selection basis.

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 explicitly says 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search', providing an exclusion for when not to use this tool. It also lists the main filters (q, tags, providers) and the include option, giving clear context for invocation. However, it does not contrast with find_asyncapis or other channel-adjacent tools, so a small gap remains.

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