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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful return behavior, that it yields matching capabilities plus the tool or command to use, which matters since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the when-to-call and the return value. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 zero-required-param, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, trigger context, and return content. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note that omitting the query returns the full menu as the schema does.

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?

The single query parameter is fully documented in the schema (plain-words intent, omit for the full menu), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implicitly describes querying by situation and adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond that.

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: look up which lurq tool answers a situation and what to run next. It is a routing/discovery tool, which cleanly distinguishes it from the functional siblings (audit, compare, diff_surface, etc.) that actually perform the work.

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 explicit triggering conditions with concrete examples (an upgrade, a licence rule, a version's exports, publishing a package) and a contrast against the failure mode ('instead of guessing or skipping it'). It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls just under fully explicit routing guidance.

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