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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are ranked by relevance, each carries slug/name/description/category/price in EUR cents, and no API key is required to search — real auth and return-shape context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The registry-domain list and the return-field enumeration are doing some work but sit close to the edge of padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields and price units, and it covers auth requirements. Pagination behavior and result-count limits are the only omission for a 3-parameter search tool.

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%, so the schema documents all three parameters; the description only reinforces that the query can be a natural-language phrase rather than a literal keyword. It says nothing about offset/pagination or how the category argument constrains results, so the baseline of 3 is right.

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 and resource ('Searches the Strale capability registry') plus the three search modes (keyword, category, natural language), which lets an agent distinguish it from the execute/balance/transaction siblings without opening a schema.

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 this when you need to find the right capability for a task but don't know the exact slug' gives an explicit triggering condition and implicitly routes known-slug callers elsewhere. It stops short of naming strale_execute as the alternative, so the exclusions are inferred rather than stated.

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