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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this searches the catalog but doesn't provide extra behavioral context like pagination, rate limits, or effect on the system. The 'curated direct tool list' context is useful but not behavioral, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a necessary usage condition without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's role as a fallback search mechanism, and the output schema exists to explain return values. Given the tool's simplicity and the comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It appropriately balances brevity with necessary context.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, with each parameter (query, limit, scope, write, includeInputSchema) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches the FavCRM tool catalog for relevant operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for when the curated direct tool list doesn't contain the needed operation. The verb 'search' and resource 'tool catalog' are specific and unambiguous.

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 says to use this tool when the curated direct tool list does not contain the operation you need. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts it with the alternative (directly selecting a tool). No other exclusions are needed for a discovery/search tool.

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