search_directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: contact details are stripped from results, one page per call, and a 7-day local cache. That cache/strip/pagination detail is exactly the kind of info annotations don't carry.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraint, then return shape, then cache/legal note. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the return shape (public profile cards with name, slug, location, website, award counts, contact stripped) and pagination/cache behavior. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains the mutually-exclusive filter semantics for country/category/budget and clarifies that query matches client-side over the fetched page rather than filtering at the source. That is non-obvious behavior the schema lists only as independent params.

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 (Search) and resource (Awwwards directory of agencies, studios and freelancers), which distinguishes it from search_sites, search_elements and search_motion by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, but the resource scope is 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?

Adds a concrete usage constraint the schema cannot express: filters are path-based so only one of country/category/budget applies per request, and query is a client-side post-filter. It also flags the personal, non-commercial use restriction. No explicit alternatives are named, so not a 5.

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