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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: it is local-only and will not contact any network endpoint. This meaningfully prevents misuse as a network scanner and clarifies the static nature of the catalog.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and search dimensions. The second sentence delivers output details and a safety-relevant constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple catalog-search tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this description covers purpose, search dimensions, result contents, and the key local-only/no-network behavior. There are no significant contextual gaps.

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%, with both 'query' and 'category' already described in the schema. The description only restates the filtering role of keyword and category without adding new semantic detail, syntax guidance, or edge-case behavior, so it stays at the baseline.

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') and a specific resource ('small static curated catalog of OracleNet MCP tools'), and clearly states what it returns: tool names, endpoints, and protocol support. This distinguishes it from the sibling domain-specific tools, which are actual operations rather than catalog discovery.

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 provides clear context by stating this is a local, static catalog search and explicitly excludes probing, crawling, or network contact. It implies when to use this vs. operational sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use X instead when you need to perform an actual operation.'

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