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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it searches platform information but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any rate limits. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich in additional behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and primary use case without any wasted words. Every clause adds meaningful guidance, including the actionable 'Use before guessing tool names or JSON arguments' instruction.

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 search/discovery tool with a rich output schema, complete parameter documentation, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool searches, why it would be used, and when to use it, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with clear descriptions, including the enum values for 'area' and constraints for 'limit'. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('FavCRM MCP tools, enabled skills, and feature areas'), and it distinguishes itself from CRM data search tools by focusing on platform usage and capability discovery. The added guidance 'Use before guessing tool names or JSON arguments' further clarifies its unique role.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use before guessing tool names or JSON arguments'), providing clear contextual guidance. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools by name, but the instruction strongly implies it should be used as a discovery/assistance tool before other actions.

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