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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful scope context beyond annotations: it returns canonical links, supported languages, inputs, and which functions MCP can actually call, and it explicitly excludes browser-only collection records. That exclusion is a useful behavioral boundary.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return content, then a scope exclusion. No filler, though the middle sentence packs several return attributes into one line and could be marginally clearer.

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?

For a read-only catalog tool with no output schema, the description does describe what comes back (links, languages, inputs, callable functions) and what is excluded. However, it leaves the primary selector — the task enum values — unexplained, which is the main gap for an agent choosing the right task category.

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 coverage is only 50% — the task enum has no per-value description in the schema, and the description doesn't explain what each task value selects. The language parameter is described in the schema itself. The description adds the notion of 'supported languages' in the results but doesn't compensate for the undocumented task enum.

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 — finding TDS collecting tools and guides — and clarifies it's task-based lookup. It is clear what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_collecting_guide, which plausibly overlaps.

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 phrase 'by task' implies when to use it (when you know the task category), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like get_collecting_guide. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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