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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields and clarifying that grades and quality_score describe prompt writing rather than tested model performance.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds filtering, return fields, and an important caveat in a compact set of sentences. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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 appropriately explains the return shape (slug, title, summary, stage, category, grade) and includes a caveat about grade semantics. Combined with the detailed input schema and annotations, it gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool 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 the input schema already documents the query, stage, grade, and limit parameters including defaults, bounds, and enums. The description reinforces keyword search and optional filtering but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Builder's Prompt Library') and states that search is by keyword with optional stage and grade filters. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate its role from the sibling tools get_prompt and list_stages.

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 implies usage by saying the tool searches by keyword and optionally filters by delivery stage or prompt-writing grade. It does not state when to use this tool instead of get_prompt or list_stages, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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