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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. The description earns credit elsewhere: it discloses the return shape ('id, title, what it needs and the framework list') and the catalog size, letting an agent anticipate result volume and 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 action and scale, and the follow-up routing is placed last where it belongs. The long framework enumeration is informative for discovery but borders on bloat, costing it one point.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of describing return fields, which is the key gap it needs to fill for a search tool. Minor omission: nothing about truncation or limit behavior beyond what the schema states.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the 'leave out to list frameworks' behavior. The description adds only the framework/word filtering idea, which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Searches sebbi.pro's 755 compliance checks') with concrete scale and coverage ('32 frameworks'), then names the exact frameworks. It is immediately distinguishable from sebbi_run_check and sebbi_run_framework, which it explicitly routes to.

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 explicit when-to-use-next guidance: 'Then run one with sebbi_run_check or a whole framework with sebbi_run_framework.' The schema further clarifies that omitting framework lists frameworks. Alternatives and their triggering conditions are both named.

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