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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result set (per-tool summary, fit, starting price, caveat, links), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits behavior on empty results or result caps.

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 domain and audience, then the return contents. The enumerated return fields are slightly listy but each carries information for the agent, and there is no filler.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back, and annotations cover the read-only/world scope. It is nearly complete for a 6-param search tool, missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results or whether more than `limit` matches can be paged.

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 83%, so the schema already documents query, audience, category, max_monthly_usd, and open_source_only. The description only echoes `limit` indirectly; it adds no filtering syntax or semantic nuance beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource (the aitools.obzdn.co directory), and scopes the audience to owner-operators and small teams. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_tool, though it never names siblings explicitly.

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 says nothing about when to reach for this search versus get_tool, get_setup_quote, or request_setup, and sets no exclusions or prerequisites. The discovery-then-detail pattern is only weakly implied.

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