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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns pricing, payment rails, live availability, and quality for each match, and states that unavailable tools are excluded unless include_unavailable=true. It also notes the tool is free with no charge. These details are not in the annotations (which only cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive) and enhance agent decision-making.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose and search criteria. It efficiently covers ranking, returned fields, and the availability exclusion without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search/discovery tool with five optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, ranking order, returned data, availability filtering, and cost. It does not need to explain the output schema since that is separate, and the schema covers parameter details. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, each with its own description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the overall purpose and ranking. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Find callable tools') and the resources (tools) with clear search criteria (intent, category, max price) and a defined ranking order. It distinguishes this tool from siblings as a meta-tool for discovering other tools, and it's the only one of its kind among the listed siblings.

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 implies usage: use when you need to find or discover callable tools. It specifies that unavailable tools are excluded unless include_unavailable=true, which is a usage condition, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given its uniqueness, the lack of alternative routing is acceptable.

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