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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the include=["content"] behavior (inlines bodies) and hints at the context parameter's non-ranking role, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a search/filter tool this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, then quickly covers filters, the inline option, and the sibling alternative in a couple of sentences. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, primary filters, inline content behavior, and an alternative. It omits details on pagination and match logic, but those are either self-evident or partially covered by the schema. Overall, an agent can likely call this tool correctly.

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 44%, so the description should compensate. It highlights the key filters (q, tags, providers) and the include option, but leaves page, limit, match, and sort semantics to be inferred (sort is partly in the schema). It adds some value but does not fully bridge the gap for undocumented parameters.

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 tool finds pricing plans ('an API's pricing tiers') and explicitly differentiates from find_artifacts for cross-type search, making its purpose unambiguous even among many find_* siblings.

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 gives an explicit alternative ('Use find_artifacts for cross-type search') which functions as a when-not directive for that specific case. It implies when to use this tool (when you need pricing plans) but doesn't cover other may-apply siblings like find_rate_limits, so it's not a full routing guide.

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