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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions that include=['content'] inlines bodies and that it searches 'across the catalog,' but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, return format, or side effects. This is a moderate coverage of behavior.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then an alternative. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff; it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

It covers the core purpose, key filtering options, and routing to an alternative. The schema handles pagination and context details. It remains silent on 'match' semantics and any limitations, but overall it gives enough to invoke correctly without needing more.

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 only 44%, so the description compensates by summarizing the roles of q, tags, providers, and include. It clarifies that include inlines bodies and that filtering is done by these keys, which adds meaning beyond the schema for the most used 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 that the tool finds Spectral governance rulesets, specifies them as API design/linting rulesets, and differentiates from find_artifacts by directing cross-type search elsewhere. It names the exact resource and domain, making it easy to select.

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 explicitly says 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search,' giving a concrete alternative and condition for when not to use this tool. While it doesn't exhaustively cover all sibling distinctions, it provides actionable guidance for the most likely alternative.

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