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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states seed fields and says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens with empty queries. It doesn't mention that it supports filters like category or has_free_plan, which are in the schema. Therefore, it lacks transparency beyond purpose.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded, and provides the essential purpose without any redundant words. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool has no annotations or output schema, so the description is the only source for expected behavior and return values. It does not mention output format or any restrictions, relying entirely on the schema for parameter context. For a search tool with four optional parameters, this leaves gaps in completeness.

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?

All four parameters already have full descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description offers no additional parameter semantics; it merely repeats the query field's scope. It doesn't, for example, explain how `limit` interacts with search results.

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 identifies the operation ('Search'), the resource ('directree software catalog'), and the search scope ('by name, tagline, or description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool (single retrieval) and compare_tools (comparison).

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 implies the tool should be used when a user wants to find tools via text search on specific fields. It provides clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as preferring get_tool for direct lookups. Thus, guidance is only implied.

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