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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses one behavior: 'include=["content"] inlines bodies.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the default response format is, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a query tool with a safety profile left entirely to the description, this is a notable gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then quickly covering filtering, include behavior, and the alternative. No wasted words; every clause 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?

The description covers the core purpose and key filters, but with 10 parameters and multiple sibling tools (find_json_schemas, find_json_ld, etc.) it does not fully differentiate from all similar JSON finders or explain the response structure. It is adequate for basic use but lacks depth for a complex catalog tool with no output schema.

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 50%, so half the parameters lack documentation. The description adds value by explaining the 'include=["content"]' behavior and explicitly naming providers as a filter, but it mostly repeats parameter names (q, tags, providers) without adding deeper semantics. It does not compensate for the undocumented params like page, limit, match, or struct_type.

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 ('JSON Structures') and its scope ('across the catalog'), and clarifies what they are ('Data structures behind an API'). It also distinguishes itself from find_artifacts by naming it directly. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides usage guidance by stating when to use an alternative: 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs to the correct sibling. Also mentions the filtering capabilities (q / tags / providers) for when to apply them.

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