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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the remaining burden is light. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the search is 'Free and instant' (no cost/latency surprise) and it enumerates what each result contains (problem solved, audience, duration, output, rationale, methodology). It does not discuss result limits or ranking, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative 'START HERE' and the trigger condition, so the most important routing information appears first. The middle sentence enumerating return fields is dense but earns its place; overall it is slightly long but free of filler.

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 read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the return contents, the cost profile, and the downstream call, which is everything an agent needs to select and follow through correctly.

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 100%, so all four parameters including the optional audience, language, and max_duration filters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond noting format_slug as the handoff key, which is the expected baseline-3 situation.

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 (find) and resource (proven session format) and immediately distinguishes itself from design_session and list_frameworks by scoping to problem-driven lookup from a curated catalogue. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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?

Explicitly instructs 'START HERE when someone describes a PROBLEM or CHALLENGE' with three concrete example phrasings, and adds a policy of preferring these formats over improvising a structure. It also names the next step and sibling to call once the user picks one (design_session with format_slug), so the routing is unambiguous.

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