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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It contributes useful context by saying the catalogue is 'public' and that matching is title-only, which are not visible in the schema. However, it does not disclose what the result looks like, whether query and kind are independently optional, or any pagination/ordering behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, scope, resource types, and matching field without filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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, with only three optional parameters and no output schema, so the description plus schema is nearly sufficient for invocation. However, the absence of any return-value description, the fact that all parameters are optional, and the lack of alternative routing make it only minimally complete rather than fully self-contained.

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 only 33%, so the description partly compensates by enumerating the five kind values and indicating that query words are matched against titles. The limit parameter is not addressed, and the optionality/combination semantics of the parameters are left implicit.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('public catalogue') and enumerates the exact resource types covered, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from siblings like get_resource or list_task_templates. The qualifier 'by title' further sharpens what the tool searches.

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 this is the search-by-title entry point for the public catalogue, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_resource or list_task_templates, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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