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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the offline nature ('without contacting external providers') and the fixed scope of 350 prepared profiles, which is useful context. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope, followed by the key distinguishing feature (offline search). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and the detailed parameter descriptions in the schema for q, the description adequately covers the search scope, offline behavior, and criteria. It does not mention pagination (limit/cursor) but those are defined in the schema. For a read-only search tool, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could briefly mention when to use it vs alternatives.

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 only 25% (only q has a detailed description, which is already extensive). The tool description gives a high-level summary of search criteria (category, keyword, hostname) but does not explain limit or cursor parameters. Since q's description is already in the schema, the tool description adds little new meaning for that parameter, and it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit and cursor. However, the summary does map 'keyword' and 'hostname' to q, offering some guidance.

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 verb 'Search', the resource '350 prepared structured resource profiles', and the search criteria (category, keyword, hostname). It also explicitly notes 'without contacting external providers', distinguishing it from potentially external search tools. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_agents by specifying 'resource profiles'.

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 a use case for local, offline resource search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention search_agents or get_resource or provide exclusion conditions. The 'without contacting external providers' hint suggests a preference for offline search, but the guidance is not explicit.

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