search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a fair job: it establishes this is a read of a public catalogue and explicitly that it does not execute or test servers, a real behavioral boundary. It omits auth/rate-limit context and any pagination behavior, which for a public search endpoint is a minor gap.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return content, and a negative scope guard, all front-loaded with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's note that it returns catalogue listings appropriately fills that gap, and the three parameters are covered by the schema. Complete enough for a simple directory search, missing only result-size/paging expectations.

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 query, limit, and category are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no format or matching-syntax detail beyond that, which is acceptable at the baseline but not additive.

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 ('Search the Agent Connectors directory') and clarifies the return ('matching listings from the public catalogue'). The scope note that it 'does not run or test those servers' usefully separates it from actually executing a tool, though it never names the sibling search/get tools it complements.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to find listings. The negative clause ('does not run or test those servers') rules out an execution interpretation, but there is no guidance on when to prefer get_tool for a known tool or list_categories for browsing by category.

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