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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful behavioral context: what is returned (canonical links, supported languages, inputs, callable functions) and a concrete negative constraint that browser-only collection records are never read.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the return contents and constraint follow. Nothing is wasted, though the return-list sentence could be slightly more compact.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back and flags the browser-only exclusion, which is the key completeness concern for a discovery tool. The remaining gap is that task enum values are never explained in either the schema or the description.

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 50% — the 'language' enum is documented but the 'task' enum values are not described anywhere. The description mentions 'by task' and 'supported languages', but adds no detail on what each task category or language code means, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find TDS collecting tools and guides') scoped by 'task', which clearly separates it from content-retrieval siblings like get_collecting_guide. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the discovery/index framing is unambiguous.

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?

'by task' implies when to use it (you have a task category in mind) and the exclusion 'Browser-only collection records are never read' hints at scope limits. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_collecting_guide or the other lookup siblings.

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