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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the operation and scope, and 'search' implies a read-only behavior, but it does not mention output format, pagination, result limits, or other behavioral traits. It is not misleading, but it is thin.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource scope, and query style, giving an agent the essential information immediately.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no nested objects, so the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and explicitly described return shape, but for a simple free-text search this is acceptable.

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% and the parameter is documented as 'Search query.' The description adds useful semantics by clarifying that the query is free text, which distinguishes it from structured filters and adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource scope ('products, systems, and MCP listings'), and a method ('free text'). It is more specific than a pure tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar sibling tools like discovery or floor_search.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when searching across those resource types with free text. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, which is a meaningful gap given the large set of search/discovery-related siblings.

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