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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the 12-result page cap, nextOffset pagination, that results omit schemas, and that the public catalog needs no management scope.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return shape with pagination, and the schema-retrieval handoff plus auth note. Everything useful is front-loaded with no filler.

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 search tool backed by an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it searches, result count cap, pagination via nextOffset, the deliberate absence of schemas, and the sibling to call next.

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 100%, so the schema already documents q, limit, offset, and category in detail. The description adds only a light paraphrase of the query dimensions and pagination, so it meets the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Find') with the exact resource ('source-backed product questionnaires') and its searchable dimensions ('situation, measure, or category'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling fillo_get_library_form, which it explicitly routes to for schemas.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool (finding forms by situation/measure/category) and explicitly names the follow-up tool for retrieving full schemas. It doesn't state exclusion conditions against other list-style siblings like fillo_list_forms, so it stops short of a 5.

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