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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'live' usefully signals the catalog is dynamic, but the description says nothing about result volume, truncation, ordering, or what happens when limit is exceeded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the return type and examples earn their place.

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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, so the remaining gap is parameter and workflow guidance. For a discovery tool that feeds a conversion pipeline, an agent still lacks instructions on filtering, paging, and how the slugs connect to the sibling convert tools.

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 must carry the parameter burden and does not. It gestures at the search concept but never explains matching behavior, nor does it mention the limit parameter, its default of 50, or its 1-100 range.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (live HTML.now converter catalog) and states what is returned (valid converter slugs), with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like convert_image_url by being a discovery/lookup tool, though it never names them 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step that yields slugs for later conversion calls. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling tools, and no guidance on when to filter with search versus listing everything.

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