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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't carry: catalog scale, the exact fields returned, and a citation obligation when quoting prices. It omits pagination behavior beyond the limit param, keeping it from 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?

Three compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The final citation sentence is an operational requirement rather than a description of the tool, but it does earn its place by preventing unattributed price quoting.

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 return values needn't be explained and the description only sketches them briefly. With zero required parameters and annotations covering safety, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke correctly; only the sibling-routing guidance is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, category, limit, and sort adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail — notably the bare 'pricing' enum has no description in either place. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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/filter) and resource (software tools) and quantifies the catalog at 10,000+ tools, which is more informative than the title. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_tool or recommend_tools, so an agent still has to infer which entry point fits a given request.

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 — the description says what searching does but never states when to pick this over recommend_tools, compare_tools, or get_tool. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must derive selection logic from the sibling names alone.

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