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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior by explaining that include=['content'] inlines bodies and that filters like q/tags/providers affect results. It omits pagination, sorting defaults, response shape, and any side-effect or authorization notes, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 important routing and filter guidance is short and mostly front-loaded. However, 'OAuth scope catalogs across the catalog' is redundant and 'Understanding plan.' is vague filler that adds no actionable 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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical invocation details unexplained: pagination semantics, match behavior, providers format, and what the result set looks like. It names one sibling alternative and one include option, but an agent would still need to guess several call decisions.

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 needed to compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds some meaning by clarifying include and naming the filterable fields, but it provides no semantics for page, limit, match, or the acceptable format of providers. The include explanation keeps this above baseline, but not by much.

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 the tool as providing OAuth scopes defined by APIs and points to the sibling find_artifacts for cross-type search, which helps differentiate it. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'search' and includes the awkward phrase 'OAuth scope catalogs across the catalog.'

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 names find_artifacts as the alternative for cross-type search, giving the agent a direct routing rule. It also lists available filters, implying the tool is for OAuth-scope-specific queries. It doesn't provide broader when-not-to-use guidance against other find_* siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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