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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the records are signed manifests, they describe declarative HTTP ops on external surfaces, and results are ordered by verified-op count. It omits pagination, result caps, and whether signed-manifest verification is checked at query time.

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 short sentences front-loaded with the action and the resource, then the ordering rule, then the filters. Dense but every clause carries information; only the '(' social, marketplace, forum, app ')' gloss is arguably expendable.

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 an all-optional, read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers what is searched and how results are ranked, which is the core need. It stops short of describing result shape, page size, or whether an empty filter set returns everything, gaps an agent would hit on the first call.

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 0%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning, and it does partially by enumerating four filter axes (surface, kind, status, text) that map cleanly onto the four properties including q. However, it says nothing about matching behavior for q or which values 'kind' and 'surface' accept, leaving text-matching semantics undocumented.

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?

A specific verb ('Search') plus a precisely named resource ('the widespread-adapter/1 registry') that is further defined as signed manifests of declarative HTTP ops. That definition distinguishes it from the singular sibling wide_adapter even though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 usage by listing the filter axes ('Filter by surface, kind, status, or text') and the ranking ('Ranked by verified-op count'), so an agent can infer this is a discovery/browse tool. It never states when to prefer it over wide_adapter for fetching a single adapter, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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