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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: discloses it is FREE, results are capped at 25 each, and matching is case-insensitive substring. It also clarifies it does not search inside records. However, it omits details about the limit parameter's effect and error/edge cases, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description is concise but information-dense, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance, exclusions, and input details. Each sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It balances thoroughness with brevity.

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 name-resolution tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the return structure (two arrays capped at 25), usage context, and exclusions. The missing limit parameter explanation is the main gap, but overall it is sufficiently comprehensive for agent use.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly defines q as 'a case-insensitive substring,' which is helpful. But the limit parameter is never mentioned; its behavior and relationship to the 25-cap remain ambiguous. This partial compensation yields a score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolves a partial name into exact model IDs and dataset names' and explicitly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing it only matches names, not retrieves values. It uses specific verbs and resources, making it unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use this FIRST whenever you have a fuzzy name' and warns 'Do NOT use it to retrieve values' with direct alternatives: 'use anansi_price_current for prices or anansi_data_search (paid) to search every field.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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