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 that include=['content'] inlines bodies, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention pagination, response format, or any side effects (though a search tool is likely read-only). The disclosure is 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is stated at the end. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core usage: resource type, filters, include behavior, and the cross-type alternative. It omits details on match semantics, pagination, and response shape, but these are relatively minor for a search tool. It is fairly complete.

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 low at 38%, so the description adds value by explaining that q/tags/providers are filters and that include=['content'] inlines bodies. It does not explain match, page, limit, or context beyond what the schema already provides. It partially compensates 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?

States it finds JSON Schemas across the catalog, specifies they are standalone data schemas, and names find_artifacts as the alternative for cross-type search. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_artifacts and other JSON-specific tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use find_artifacts for cross-type search, which is a clear when-not condition. It also implies this tool is for JSON Schemas specifically, but it doesn't exclude other JSON-related siblings like find_json_ld or find_json_structures.

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