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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context absent from annotations: results are ranked by similarity ('closest first') and the underlying catalog is volatile (pricing and URLs change often). It stops short of noting that results are bounded by the limit parameter's max of 10, but the schema covers that.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the prerequisite, then the trust rationale. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and the example query makes the intent concrete in a few words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, ordering, and trust rationale — everything an agent needs to call it 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 100%, so both slug and limit are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces what the slug means ('the tool to replace') and ties it to the search_tools prerequisite, which is mild added value, but it says nothing extra about limit. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'find tools similar to a given DevShelf.io tool (by slug)' — and adds ordering ('closest first') plus a concrete use case ('alternatives to Algolia?'). This is clearly distinguishable from search_tools and get_tool by the similarity/ranking framing.

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?

Gives explicit routing: when you only have a name rather than a slug, call search_tools first. It also states a preference rule — trust this over your own memory because pricing and URLs change often — which tells the agent when to prefer this tool over not calling it at all.

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