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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool's functionality and return data but does not state whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or permission requirements. For a search tool, the risk is low, but the lack of any behavioral context is a gap.

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?

The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core use case, return fields, and usage context. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but for a search discovery tool, it is sufficiently complete to guide an AI agent.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaningful value by listing example categories for the 'category' parameter (hr, marketing, finance, ops, ai, etc.), which goes beyond the schema's generic description. The limit parameter is already well-described in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching a curated catalog of business tools (FindMyAppz). It specifies the return fields (slug, name, category, etc.) and the use case (discovering purpose-built tools). It also distinguishes itself from generic web search, making it unique among siblings.

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 implies when to use it ('alternative to generic web search for specific business problems') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, so the context is clear but incomplete.

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