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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful domain context by clarifying this is a canonical reference catalog rather than transactional data, which prevents an agent from treating results as live market inventory. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. The catalog-vs-live distinction comes before the downstream-use hint, which is the correct ordering.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-param read-only search with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the catalog is, what it is not, and how results feed the pipeline.

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% (q, page, per_page all documented), so the schema carries full parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or scoping detail about the query beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Search) plus the precise resource (Alt's reference card-design catalog) and immediately scopes it as a canonical design catalog distinct from live listings or sales. An agent can distinguish it from alt_search, alt_listing, and alt_sold_listings without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete use case (finding a card design's asset_id to feed into alt_asset) and a clear boundary (separate from live listings or sales). It stops short of naming the specific sibling to use for live-listing lookups, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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