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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the return shape (ranked summaries with canonical URLs) and the pagination contract with matched vs returned vs truncated, including a direct warning not to overstate catalog coverage. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then the return value, then the truncation caveat. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does, including the ranked-summaries structure and pagination semantics. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the result correctly.

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 100% and each parameter is already documented with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the limit ceiling (max 50) but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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) plus the resource (AISOTools catalog of AI tools) and the three filter dimensions, which cleanly separates it from get_ai_tool, compare_ai_tools, and find_ai_tool_alternatives. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring it.

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?

"Use it when the user asks which AI tool does something" gives a concrete triggering condition, and the truncation guidance tells the agent how to follow up. No when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. 'for details on a single tool, use get_ai_tool') are provided.

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