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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a non-destructive search operation, but it does not disclose the return format, whether results are exact or fuzzy matches, or pagination behavior. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the second sentence provides practical context without waste. It is compact and informative.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states what is searched, the resolution purpose, and the limit parameter is already documented. Sibling tools provide additional context. The main gap is a lack of detail about the result structure, but that is not critical for selection.

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%: both 'query' and 'limit' are described with examples, defaults, and constraints. The description adds that query can match name/slug/category/description, which reinforces the schema but doesn't add new parameter semantics. This is the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Find') and the resource ('monitored APIs'), and enumerates the searchable fields (name, slug, category, description). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools by explaining that it resolves a product name into the slug used by other tools.

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 'Use this to resolve a product name the user mentioned into the slug the other tools take,' which gives a concrete use case and implies that alternatives require the slug. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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