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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds real scope context beyond them: results are limited to public listings from active catalogs and exclude private notes and hidden listings. That is exactly the kind of visibility boundary an agent needs before quoting results to a buyer. It does not discuss rate limits or empty-result behavior, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the triggering condition, then the visibility guarantee, then the filtering/paging advice. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return shapes, and it correctly focuses on scope, visibility, and pagination for a 17-parameter search tool. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the sibling read tools, which matter for tool selection at this catalog size.

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 94%, so the 17 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only one piece of semantic guidance beyond the schema, the preference for specific filters over the broad q parameter; cursor usage is already spelled out 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('search' over 'public Daylily Catalog inventory'), and enumerates the artifact types returned: growers, prices, photos, availability. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_listing, but it never names the close read siblings (list_public_listings, get_public_listing, search_cultivars), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 a concrete triggering situation ('when a buyer asks for public... inventory, growers, prices, photos') plus a filter-preference rule ('prefer specific filters over q') and a paging rule ('follow nextCursor until null'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use this one, which keeps it below a 5.

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