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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'compact cards with source link' but omits details like pagination behavior, response size limits, or whether results are sorted. The schema's limit parameter (default 50, cap 200) is not mentioned in the description, leaving some behavior implicit.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first clearly lists the search criteria, the second states the return format. Every word adds value; no redundant or irrelevant information. Highly efficient.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'compact cards' without specifying the fields in each card (e.g., name, description, price). For an agent to decide if the results suffice, more detail on the response structure is needed.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description reiterates the criteria (category, maxPrice, hasFreeTier, keyword) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Find software by criteria' listing specific filters (category, max price, free-tier, keyword) and the output format ('compact cards with source link'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_software or get_pricing, which focus on comparison or pricing details.

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 usage for discovery tasks by listing criteria but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_tco or get_cost_guide. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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