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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the catalog size (121 tools), the domain partitioning, and exactly which fields come back (names, 1-line summaries, satoshi/USDC prices, free-tier flags), which tells the agent this is a cheap pre-flight lookup.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scale, second sentence dedicated to return shape. No filler, and the domain list earns its place by conveying the breadth of coverage at a glance.

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 three-optional-parameter read-only search with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and return fields adequately. It would be complete at 5 if it told the agent to call this before execute/inspect, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents query, domain (with full enum) and free_only, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond repeating the domain suite names that already appear in the enum. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('121 deterministic edge microservices across 9 domain suites'), plus an enumerated list of domains and the shape of the results. An agent can tell this is a catalog/discovery operation rather than an execution or inspection one, though it never names diogenes_execute_tool or diogenes_inspect_tool 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?

Usage is only implied — an agent is expected to infer that you call this first to find a tool before calling diogenes_execute_tool. There is no explicit 'use this when...' clause, no statement of when-not to use it, and no routing to the inspect/execute siblings.

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