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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the tool returns exact tool names for matched domains, logs every search to a roadmap database, and costs no credits. The disclosed server-side query logging is a side effect worth surfacing even under readOnlyHint. It does not, however, describe match granularity or what an empty result means, so it stops short of a 5.

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 routing instruction and cost/next-step guidance are front-loaded and earn their place, but the middle is a ~300-word catalog dump of 82 domains that largely duplicates what the tool itself returns on invocation. Shorter guidance plus letting the search do the enumeration would be tighter.

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 compensates by explaining what comes back (exact tool names for matched domains), that queries are logged and can influence the roadmap, and the pricing/API-key path. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool 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?

The single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with its own examples, so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'Call for:' phrase list loosely illustrates acceptable query framing but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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) plus resource (available datasets / the entire data catalog) and its role as a router to every other tool. An agent can immediately distinguish it from all 380+ domain-specific siblings like fmcsa_carrier_lookup or edgar_filings_by_form_type.

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?

Explicitly says to call this FIRST when unsure which tool to use, enumerates concrete triggering phrases ('what data do you have?', 'do you have Y data?'), and names the follow-on step (get_free_api_key with a real email, or the pricing page). When-and-what-next guidance is unusually complete.

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