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

Annotations confirm read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds that the tool matches against multiple fields (title, description, tags, category) and scopes to 80+ standards, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence with immediate action verb 'search', scope 'catalog of 80+ ad tech standards', and matching fields. No redundant 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?

For a simple keyword search tool with two parameters, the description adequately covers what, where, and how. Lacks mention of result format or error scenarios, but annotations and schema fill some gaps. Overall sufficient for basic use.

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 has two parameters with 50% coverage (query has description, limit none). The description mentions 'by keyword' linking to query but adds no parameter-specific details for limit (e.g., meaning, default, range). Does not compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches a catalog of ad tech standards by keyword, matching title, description, tags, and category. It lists concrete examples (OpenRTB, VAST, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_protocol (retrieval of specific protocol) and search_glossary (different catalog).

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 (for keyword-based search across the catalog) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names give context but lack direct guidance.

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