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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds result-structure context, but the claim 'Paging is not supported' directly conflicts with the schema's cursor 'Pagination token' parameter and the limit max-50 rule, which misleads about behavior.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the sections are organized, but the long enumeration of returned fields largely duplicates what an existing output schema already provides, adding length without proportional value.

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 field list is redundant, and the description leaves gaps around most parameters and gives inaccurate paging guidance. It does supply useful orientation on tool types, but is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.

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 40%, so the description carries substantial burden, yet it documents only collection_concept_id (and calls it 'required' when the schema marks it optional with a null default). The fields and keyword parameters are undocumented in both places, and limit/cursor are only explained by the schema itself.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Search), resource (NASA CMR tools), and scope (associated with a specific parent collection). It is distinct from siblings like get_services, get_variables, and get_citations by resource type, though it never explicitly names them for contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping to a parent collection, and the closing Note hints at how to interpret multiple results by type. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., when to use get_services or get_collections instead), nor any stated preconditions or exclusions.

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