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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the local-only scope, explicitly denying remote delegation, and stating that the result includes schemas, endpoints, and limits. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action is first, return value second, usage guidance and scope follow, and every clause earns its place. It is dense but immediately useful to an agent.

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?

Given the rich annotations, output schema, and modest parameter count, the description covers what the tool does, how it should be used, what it returns, and important exclusions such as 'no remote delegation'. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 50%, but the description compensates for the main parameter by explaining that query accepts 'English task keywords or exact tool name'. The limit parameter is self-explanatory and bounded by schema constraints, while the two ID parameters already carry schema descriptions. The description does not add value for those IDs, but the key search parameter is clarified.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('executable capability in ATTRACTOR'), and clarifies the search modes: English task keywords or exact tool name. It also distinguishes itself from a global directory by scoping to 'this server catalog', and the returned artifacts (schemas, endpoints, limits) make the operation concrete.

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 gives clear context: use when selecting an operation without reading a websiteaine. It also states a clear exclusion: no remote delegation and not a global address book. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool in favor of a specific sibling such as find_solutions or read_solution.

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