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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral detail, that only public records are returned, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination beyond the limit cap, or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, the catalog, the match key, and the result scope all arrive in one pass, and nothing is repeated.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, a complete schema, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and match key adequately. The remaining gap is not distinguishing itself from get_tool and not mentioning the empty-result or cap behavior.

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 100%, so q and limit are already documented in the schema (case-insensitive fragment; default 10, max 25). The description only restates 'by name or slug' and 'matching records', adding no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search), resource (aicoolies tool catalog), matching field (name or slug), and scope (public records). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the close sibling get_tool, which presumably does an exact single-record lookup, so the search-vs-fetch split is left implicit.

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 phrase 'by name or slug' hints that this is a fuzzy/partial-match tool to use when you lack an exact key, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named (get_tool, list_developer_resources). Usage context is only implied.

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