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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the retrieval strategy (match on name+category first, fall back to description) and the Canton-only scope, which affects coverage expectations for the agent.

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 no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the matching/ranking caveat follows. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (best matches) and ranking fallback, and scopes the data source. It is nearly complete for a simple search tool, though it stops short of noting result ordering or empty-result behavior.

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%, so both the pattern examples and the limit default/max are already documented in the schema. The description restates that the pattern spans name, category, and description, which adds little beyond the schema and says nothing about limit, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (pattern-search) and resource (Featured Apps catalogue) plus the fields searched (name, category, description), which is more than the name alone conveys. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from obvious siblings like list_featured_apps or semantic_search, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 phrase "by free-text query" and "Canton-specific" imply when this tool applies (fuzzy/partial matching within the Canton Featured Apps set), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_featured_apps or the generic search/semantic_search tools. Usage is left to inference.

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