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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: what a lite result contains (name, toolset, title, one line, parameter names), what full adds (complete definition with input schema), and the default row counts. It says nothing about the opt-in analytics forwarded via _meta, which is only disclosed in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then query phrasing, then the detail switch, then a closing precondition — a logical order with no filler. The result-fields sentence is a slightly dense list but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by enumerating lite fields and describing the full variant. Combined with the parameter defaults and the pre-call rule, an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly; only the _meta analytics side effect is left undocumented.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by tying detail="full" to a behavioral consequence (safe to call at once) and by giving query phrasing examples. The default counts for limit are stated, though the _meta analytics parameter is not discussed at all.

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?

"Find tools by what they do" gives a specific verb (find) and resource (tools), and the description makes clear this is discovery rather than execution. It does not name its siblings call_tool/describe_tool outright, but the closing rule "Have a tool's full definition before its first call" implicitly separates it from call_tool.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance — phrase the query as object + action, use toolset to narrow, use detail "full" when you expect to call the result immediately. The one gap is that it never explicitly says when to prefer the sibling describe_tool instead of detail="full".

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