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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the description does not waste words repeating it. It adds genuinely extra behavior: the exact record shape returned (name, category, tool description, link) and the empty-query fallback, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning result limits or ordering beyond what the schema says.

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?

Front-loads what is searched, then when to use it, then the return shape and the alternative route — a sensible priority order. The parenthetical vendor list and the guide cross-reference both earn their place, though the single block is dense enough that the search-vs-rules boundary could be more visually separable.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the empty-query behavior, and with only two optional params the schema finishes the job. The explicit pointer to list_guides/get_guide covers the most likely follow-up question, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are documented there, including default and max for limit, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'Empty query lists all' restates the schema's 'Empty returns all' and it adds nothing about limit behavior, so no credit above baseline.

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 and resource ('search crypto tax software for Swedish K4 reporting') and names the concrete catalog (Divly, Koinly, CoinTracking). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_crypto_tax_tool and from the guide tools, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a user asks which tool can calculate crypto gains or produce K4 underlay') and an explicit hand-off for the adjacent need ('For the actual K4 rules call list_guides then get_guide'), even naming the ordering between siblings. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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