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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: returns ranked results with specific fields ('slug, name, description, category, and price in EUR cents') and states 'No API key required to search.' This goes beyond a simple 'search' claim, although it omits potential rate limits or error behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by usage guidance, return details, and auth note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how to use it (when to use), and access requirements. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, even without annotations.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that the query accepts natural language, that results are ranked by relevance, and that categories span company data, compliance, etc. This enriches the schema's simple parameter descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Searches the Strale capability registry by keyword, category, or natural language query.' This specifies the verb (searches), resource (capability registry), and scope (keyword, category, natural language), distinguishing it from sibling tools like strale_balance or strale_execute.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you need to find the right capability for a task but don't know the exact slug.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over others, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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