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

Annotations already convey read-only intent, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it does not call providers, create demand, or trigger payment, and clarifies that limit only controls result count. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 information-dense sentences with no filler. The purpose, usage context, side-effect disclosure, and default behavior are all covered without redundancy.

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?

Covers the input type, read-only nature, default limit, and handoff to resolve_capability. Lacks explicit mention of what happens when no match is found or how results are returned, but these are minor for a search tool without an output schema.

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 the schema already documents query and limit, including defaults and constraints. The description adds slight context about natural-language querying and the default limit, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema.

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+resource ('Search the replay-verified MISSING catalog') and clearly distinguishes the tool from resolve_capability by describing the input as a natural-language task description rather than a capability identifier.

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?

Explicitly says to use this when you know the task but not the exact capability identifier, and routes to resolve_capability when a suitable match is found. It does not explicitly contrast with list_verified_capabilities or record_missing_capability_demand, but gives enough context to choose this tool.

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