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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful scope ('declared throttling policies') and include behavior ('include=['"content"'] inlines bodies'), but it does not disclose the default return shape, pagination behavior, or whether results are summaries versus full objects beyond the include hint.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's scope, clarifies the domain with a synonym, and then lists filtering options and the sibling alternative efficiently.

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 filterable catalog-find tool, the description covers the essential purpose, filters, include behavior, and alternative routing. It is not quite a 5 because there is no output schema and the description does not explain pagination, sort ordering, or match any/all semantics, though these are partially inferable from the input 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 only 44%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that q, tags, and providers are filters and that include=['content'] inlines bodies, but it leaves page, limit, match, and sort semantics to the schema, with page/limit/match having no schema descriptions either.

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 identifies the resource as rate-limit policies / declared throttling policies across the catalog and distinguishes it from find_artifacts for cross-type search. It lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'lists', but the intent is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 tells the agent to use find_artifacts for cross-type search, which serves as a clear when-not/alternative routing instruction. It also states the main filtering dimensions (q, tags, providers) and the include option, so the agent knows how to adapt the call.

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