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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by explaining the output format (compact operation names, descriptions, domains, read/write effects) and the browse behavior. It does not mention pagination details, but those are in the schema.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and usage, then states the output. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, how to use it, what it returns, and the parameter semantics. There is nothing an agent needs to know to call it correctly that is missing.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description enhances the query parameter with concrete examples ('find records', 'zero-result queries') and explains the browse option when omitted. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'concise description of the desired capability' and helps the agent craft effective queries.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: discovering Algolia operations without needing exact names. It lists what it returns (operation names, descriptions, domains, read/write effects) and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like algolia_call_read_tool and algolia_describe_tool by focusing on discovery rather than execution or detailed description.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool: search with concise intent phrases and omit the query to browse. It gives concrete examples and implies that when exact names are known, other tools are more appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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