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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Search' verb is consistent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as searching for 'how to use the platform,' which implies returning documentation.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word is meaningful. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the large set of sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers when and how to use the tool. It could be slightly more detailed about the scope (e.g., that it returns tool definitions), but it remains complete for typical use.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description says 'plain-language capability question,' which adds context to the 'query' parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Search FavCRM MCP tools, enabled skills, and feature areas for how to use the platform.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that differentiates it from sibling tools like search_crm or search_tools.

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 advises agents to 'Use before guessing tool names or JSON arguments,' indicating when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't list alternatives, the context strongly implies it is a discovery aid.

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