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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing catalogue size (~4,000 tools), exactly what each result record contains (id, description, inputs, approximate read cost), and that the search itself consumes no reads. Only the result-set behavior (ranking, pagination, what happens on zero matches) is left unstated.

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 core action and cost hint are front-loaded in the first clause, and the closing sentence about result contents and zero read cost earns its place. The long middle enumeration of data categories is defensible for query matching but is a laundry list that could be tightened.

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 correctly compensates by describing the shape of each returned record and the read-cost field. Combined with the free-search disclosure, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the missing `limit` semantics and the unstated hand-off to use_tool leave small gaps.

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 parameter meaning. It clarifies that `job` is a natural-language job-to-be-done rather than a keyword or tool name, which is genuinely useful. But the `limit` parameter (default 8) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource — "Search a catalogue of about 4,000 data tools by the job to be done" — which unambiguously identifies this as a meta/discovery tool, distinct from every sibling that performs the actual data work (keyword_research, find_news, check_backlinks, etc.). The category enumeration further pins down the scope of what is searchable.

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?

Clear context is given: search by job description, and "Searching uses no reads" tells the agent this is a free pre-step. However, it never names the natural follow-on (use_tool) or states when NOT to search — an agent must infer the two-step discover-then-invoke flow from the phrase "Each tool found comes with its id."

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