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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely behavioral detail beyond that: a hard result cap of 24 and the guarantee of stable IDs plus canonical citation URLs. It does not discuss ranking, relevance behavior, or what happens with zero matches, keeping it short of a 5.

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, no redundancy, with the scope of coverage stated before the return contract. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so spelling out returned fields is largely redundant, yet the 24-result cap is worth keeping. What is missing is the one thing the structured fields do not supply: how to phrase a query and when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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 `query` parameter, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing — no syntax, no expected format, no note about the 200-character limit. It only implies a search term exists.

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 enumerates the resources searched: public applications, chatbot catalog, and labeled news. Sibling tools (fetch, compare_tools, submit_application) are functionally distinct enough that no explicit differentiation is required, though none is offered.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over fetch or compare_tools, and no prerequisites or query-context hints. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for discovery purely from the tool name.

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