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. The only explicit behavior is that `include=["content"]` inlines bodies. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works (despite `page` and `limit` parameters), or what the result shape is. For a search tool, this is a significant gap—the agent cannot infer safety or expectations.

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, with the core resource and scope front-loaded in the first sentence, and usage guidance compactly placed in the second. No wasted words; every clause carries relevant 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?

For an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, basic filters, and sibling differentiation, but omits pagination behavior, result format, ordering, and read-only confirmation. This is adequate for a basic call but leaves meaningful gaps that would affect an agent's expectations.

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 only 38% (q, tags, context have descriptions). The description adds meaning for `providers` (it lists them as filters) and `include` (it explains content inlining), but leaves `page`, `limit`, and `match` without clarification. Since it partially compensates for the low schema coverage but does not fully explain all parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific resource ('OpenAPI specifications'), a scope ('across the catalog'), and differentiates itself from two siblings ('get_openapi returns one API's primary spec', 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search'). The verb 'find' is implicit but clear from the tool name and filtering instructions. This is a distinct, well-scoped 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Filter by q / tags / providers' and 'include=["content"] inlines bodies' for this tool, plus clear alternatives ('get_openapi returns one API's primary spec', 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search'). This tells an agent exactly when to pick this tool over its siblings.

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