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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real behavioral context: only published, live tools are returned, and each result carries pricing, Effect score, and a card link. No rate limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core search capability, then filters, then return payload. No redundant restatement of the name or title and nothing padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return fields, yet it summarizes what comes back. For a 5-parameter search tool this is nearly complete; the only gap is guidance on when this discovery tool should be replaced by its sibling lookup/comparison tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully separates the free-text query (product name, job, or plain-word category) from the strict slug parameters and pricing enum. That contrast helps an agent choose the right field rather than dumping everything into query.

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) and resource (EffectHub catalog of AI tools) and enumerates the three accepted query shapes with parenthetical examples. An agent can immediately tell this is the discovery/browse tool and distinguish it from get_tool or compare_tools.

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 implies when the tool applies (finding tools by name, job, or category) and mentions optional narrowing filters, but never names a sibling or states when to prefer get_tool, compare_tools, or list_alternatives instead. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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