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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: that 'credits' returns a remaining daily quota of 100 free units per day, hinting at a metered backend. It still says nothing about result format, pagination, or whether the catalog is remote.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact parameter list where each line earns its place. The bullet list is slightly redundant with the schema property names, but the extra detail (max 15, quota) justifies the repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all five parameters are addressed. What is missing is the distinction between 'search' and 'search_servers' — the single most consequential choice in this tool — and any pointer to use_tools as the follow-on.

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 0%, so the description carries the full load and does so: it enumerates the four action values, the three search_mode values, and clarifies limit's default and a max of 15 that appears nowhere in the schema. The gap is that 'search' vs 'search_servers' is never distinguished, and 'category name' gives no hint of valid values.

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 opening sentence names a concrete verb pair (search/browse) and a concrete resource (the ClawdChat tool-gateway catalog), so the agent immediately knows this is a discovery tool. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'use_tools', which is the tool an agent would most plausibly confuse it with.

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 action list implies when each mode is used (search for keywords, categories for browsing, credits for quota), but nothing is stated explicitly. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of the natural next step (use_tools) after discovery.

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