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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description nevertheless adds the non-obvious access-tier behavior that non-contributors receive a teaser count instead of the full layer. It stops short of saying whether that degrades gracefully or errors, and what a returned 'tool that worked' entry contains.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core definition up front and the gating caveat second. The opening label 'Contributor layer:' is jargon that costs a little comprehension but occupies few tokens.

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 read-only browse tool with no output schema and all-optional parameters, the description covers the selection criteria and access gating but leaves the result shape unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it receives tool records, counts, or a truncated list when unauthenticated.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description carries real weight by naming three of the four inputs (agent_type, stage, stack) as the matching criteria, clarifying that they are filters rather than required identity fields. The contributor_key is left entirely to the schema, which is where its lengthy explanation lives.

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?

It states a specific resource: tools that worked for agents matching your agent_type, stage and stack — an agent can tell this is a profile-matched results lookup rather than a keyword search. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings like search_tools, compare_tools or check_stack, and the noun-phrase framing ('Contributor layer:') supplies no explicit verb.

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 second sentence implies the usage condition — you get full results only as a contributor, otherwise a teaser count — which is real guidance about outcome. It still offers no routing advice versus alternatives (search_tools, check_stack) or states prerequisites like supplying contributor_key from a prior write.

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