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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavior: each result has a buyUrl that may be an affiliate link and is the intended link to send the user to, plus a clean url. It also explains the meaning of the small and fresh filters. This is valuable context beyond what the schema provides, though it omits other behaviors like pagination or result limits.

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 tightly written in two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial output details and filter usage. No filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the key result fields (buyUrl, url), and parameter semantics. It lacks full return format details (e.g., other result fields, ordering, pagination), but it is reasonably complete given the tool's apparent simplicity. The absence of an output schema makes full return shape disclosure more important, so a small deduction is applied.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond rephrasing the small and fresh parameters ('low-authority (buried)' vs 'recent launches'). Since the schema already handles parameter meaning, the description's contribution is minimal, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search independent, small, and newly launched software that mainstream search engines bury.' This clearly states what the tool does and its distinctive scope, distinguishing it from generic search tools. The mention of 'buyUrl' and 'clean url' further clarifies the output type.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for indie/small/new software that mainstream engines bury. It also gives actionable parameter guidance ('Use small=true to see only low-authority (buried) results, fresh=true for recent launches'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools like search_middleware.

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