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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return details, including slug, name, publication status, and match reason, but it does not disclose ranking behavior, pagination, or limits beyond what the schema provides.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, return shape second, usage context third. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or 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 two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It explains the search scope, return fields, match reason, and typical discovery use case.

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 both query and limit are already documented in the schema. The description gives example query phrases, which adds some meaning, but it does not explain parameter syntax or limit behavior beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource: 'Search the SmartVisuals catalog by keyword.' It also describes what is returned, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_visuals or get_visual.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use it to discover which visual fits a reporting need, with examples like 'retention cohort' and 'radar comparison.' However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for listing or retrieving details.

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