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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns matching tool names, descriptions, and full JSON argument schemas, and it positions the tool as a non-executing catalog lookup. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, return value, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and avoids filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value details are not required. The description covers purpose, usage workflow, examples, and query semantics. The only minor gap is that the limit parameter is never mentioned, but the tool remains callable correctly with the information provided.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the burden. It explains the query parameter well ('plain language' plus three concrete examples), but it does not explain the limit parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the default value of 8.

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: 'Find the right Opus tool from the FULL catalog.' It clearly differentiates itself from the chat's core tool set and from call_tool by framing itself as a discovery step that returns tool metadata rather than executing an action.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'for ANYTHING else... search here FIRST.' It also gives a concrete workflow ('then run the tool with call_tool') and provides example queries. This is direct, actionable usage guidance that leaves little to inference.

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