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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real context beyond them: only publicly shared wheels are searched, matching is against titles and descriptions, and the response is openable/reusable links rather than wheel data.

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 tight sentences: the scope-defining clause comes first, the return value second. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 two-param, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers source, matching fields, and output form well enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps are ranking/ordering behavior and how empty result sets are returned.

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 100% and documents both params, so the baseline is already met. The description adds value with concrete query examples ("classroom", "baby names", "raffle") that show the expected granularity of the search term, though it says nothing extra about limit behavior.

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 (search) plus resource and scope: publicly shared name-picker wheels on spinwheelnames.com, matched by title or description. The 'already created' and 'publicly shared' qualifiers clearly separate it from siblings like get_wheel (retrieve one) and spin_wheel (use one).

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?

Usage context is clear: find existing wheels by keyword, and output is links a user can open to view or reuse. It never states the inverse condition or names get_wheel as the alternative when you already have a wheel reference, so routing between siblings still requires inference.

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