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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the catalog size (25,000+), keyword-based matching, and the exact return fields (name, tagline, catalog URL, pricing). However it says nothing about result ordering/relevance, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: what it searches, how large the corpus is, and what comes back. The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, corpus scope, and return fields, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is ranking/ordering behavior and how to escalate from search results to a full tool record via get_tool.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the limit range (1-25) and an example query string. The description's 'by keyword' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (the AICatalog directory of 25,000+ AI tools) and scopes it to keyword lookup, which implicitly separates it from get_tool (single lookup) and list_categories (browsing). It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools it competes with (get_tool, list_categories). An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery path and get_tool the retrieval path.

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