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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint and destructiveHint), lowering the burden. The description adds value by specifying response content (exact keys, display labels, counts) and the pagination behavior ('Follow nextPage'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 terse sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the workflow/pagination guidance is compact. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers purpose, key parameters, return content, and pagination. The only notable gap is that `page` and `limit` semantics are left implicit, though defaults and standard pagination conventions mitigate this.

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 parameter meaning. It explains `field` ('author or subject') and `query` ('part of a name'), but leaves `page` and `limit` to their defaults and conventional meaning without explicit semantics.

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 ('Find') and resource ('catalog author or subject filter keys'), and adds the distinguishing detail of partial-name lookup. It clearly separates this from search_records by noting the returned keys are meant to be used there.

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?

Provides workflow guidance: follow nextPage and pass a returned key into search_records, which positions the tool relative to its obvious sibling. It does not enumerate exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for key discovery.

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