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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the tool is public, returns catalog version and stable inventory ids, and explicitly excludes org-specific data. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden, and the added exclusions are valuable.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope, query behavior, return/exclusion summary, and sibling routing. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 read-only search tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines scope, query semantics, return contents, exclusions, and the relevant alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents the single optional query parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the query filters by name, alias, id, or category, and that omitting or emptying the query lists the full catalog—details not fully captured in the schema description.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('public Soundcheck live-event gear taxonomy') with concrete examples of gear types. It also explicitly distinguishes what the tool does not return (org stock levels, serials, quantities, pricing), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: search the public taxonomy, optionally filter by name/alias/id/category, or omit the query for the full catalog. It also names the alternative tool, normalize_inventory, and the condition for using it (mapping free-text gear lists), which is explicit routing.

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