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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals filtering and inlining behavior but omits details like pagination defaults, sorting options, match logic, and any uniqueness or ranking behavior. That is partial transparency but not comprehensive for a read-only search tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the domain, the second covers filtering and routing to the sibling. No filler, purpose is front-loaded, and the crucial 'use find_artifacts' alternative is tucked at the end yet clear.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits pagination defaults, sort options, match behavior, and the unusual 'context' parameter entirely. An agent cannot reliably construct a well-formed request without inspecting the schema further, and the return format is unaddressed. This is a significant gap for a search 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 coverage is 44%, leaving five parameters undescribed. The description adds context for q, tags, providers, and include (explaining inlining), but does not mention page, limit, sort, or match semantics. It compensates partially but not fully for the coverage gap.

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 resource type (JSON-LD contexts / linked-data vocabularies) and the action (find across the catalog), and distinguishes itself from the sibling find_artifacts by explicitly noting cross-type search is handled there. This gives an agent enough to know exactly what this tool returns.

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 says how to filter (q / tags / providers) and explains the effect of include=['content'] (inlines bodies). It also names the alternative tool (find_artifacts) for a different use case (cross-type search), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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