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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), and the description adds real value on top: it says results distinguish supported MCP integrations from unconfigured reference listings, and that no account connection is triggered. That tells the agent what the output actually means, which annotations alone do not.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. Sentence two is dense but relevant; the wording "Results distinguish supported MCP integrations from unconfigured reference listings" could be tightened slightly but still earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and no output schema, the definition is nearly adequate, but the total absence of query semantics leaves a real gap for correct invocation. It is complete on behavior and incomplete on input.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the burden — and it says nothing about what "query" should contain (app name, keyword, substring, exact match). The only clues are the schema's minLength/maxLength constraints, which do not convey matching semantics.

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?

"Search public app listings" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the title ties it to ChatGXT's plugin directory. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_chatgxt_capabilities, so an agent must infer the boundary between searching the directory and listing capabilities.

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?

Usage is only implied by "search public app listings" — an agent can guess this is the discovery tool, but there is no stated when-to-use versus get_chatgxt_capabilities. The one explicit exclusion, "This never connects an account," is a useful guardrail but is a behavioral note rather than routing guidance.

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