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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering is by words, occasion, and face count, but says nothing about result ordering, the default/max result count, or what a result entry contains — meaningful gaps for a search tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, product explanation second, filtering capabilities third. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema and no nesting, so the description carries most of the burden — it explains the resource and the filter dimensions well. It is only slightly short on result-count/pagination behavior and the ambiguous enum values, which are the main residual gaps.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the query/occasion/faces semantics visible in the schema but adds no new meaning — notably it never explains the opaque enum values ("anti", "trash", "solo", "more") or the limit parameter at all.

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 ("Find Tangy Limes video greeting cards") and even explains the product concept, so an agent knows it is a discovery/search tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_card or buy_cards, but the search framing is distinct enough in practice.

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 gives keyword examples and names the three filtering dimensions, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never says when to prefer it over get_card/buy_cards/request_card, and it omits that all filters are optional and can be combined freely.

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