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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral depth: the ranking formula (similarity + tag overlap + success rate) and the concrete fallback (without query_text or no close semantic match, only tag-sharing procedures are returned). This edge-case behavior is not derivable from structured fields.

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 core behavior and ranking, followed by a clean Args block. Sentences are substantive and mostly earn their place, though the trailing args echo the schema names rather than adding entirely new information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys enough about return ordering and fallback so an agent can interpret results. Combined with the annotations, it is complete enough to invoke correctly; only minor input-boundary details are absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it documents all three parameters, marks context and query_text as optional, supplies concrete examples for both, and gives the default for limit. It lacks detail on input constraints (e.g. max tags, max limit), but adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 and resource ('Find stored procedures that fit a task') and specifies the matching mechanism. It's clear it's a smart search/match rather than a plain listing, but it never names the obvious sibling (list_procedures) to sharpen the distinction, so explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to locate procedures relevant to a task. The description explains the selection logic (semantic similarity and/or tag overlap), which lets an agent infer when it applies, but it never states when to prefer this over list_procedures or get_procedure, nor when not to use it.

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