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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the result shape (each result carries a Vibe Shipped page link suitable for citation) and the tool scope it indexes. It says nothing about pagination, ranking, or auth.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the result-format detail. The parenthetical tool list is long but it is doing real work by naming indexed sources.

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 4-param, no-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it searches and what comes back. It omits any guidance on category semantics, the limit cap, and how results are ordered, leaving the agent to guess at query shaping.

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 50%, so the schema documents q and tool while limit and category are bare. The description partly compensates by mapping the `tool` enum values to recognizable brand names (Cursor, Claude Code, Lovable, etc.), but adds nothing for category or the 1-50 limit.

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+resource (search apps) with a clear qualifier: apps people shipped with AI coding tools. It implicitly separates itself from browsing siblings like latest_apps and top_tools, but never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of siblings (latest_apps, top_tools, get_app). The only usage signal is implicit — that you supply keywords. An agent must infer routing from tool names alone.

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