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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the results carry — publisher, document counts, position in the document, value shape — and framing it against the OpenAPI Initiative registry. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Short two-sentence structure that leads with the resource and the provenance value proposition, then the control knobs. The first sentence is long but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description usefully stands in for return-value documentation by enumerating the result fields. The only real hole is the undocumented `include_pipeline` flag, which an agent cannot reason about from any available field.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema baseline is 3; the description reinforces that `q` matches key or purpose and that `sort` accepts occurrences, but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema. `include_pipeline` has no description in either the schema or the description, leaving one parameter unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: browsing OpenAPI `x-` specification extensions harvested across the catalog, with the scope made explicit ('every'). It differentiates from get_extension implicitly (browse/list vs. fetch one) but never names the sibling, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'Search by key or purpose; sort by occurrences' hints at how to drive the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use-it vs. get_extension guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can guess this is the discovery/list counterpart to get_extension, but the description doesn't say so.

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