Which schema covers this file?

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds observable behavior beyond annotations: results are returned 'best match first' and include name, URL and covered file names. Useful, though no rate-limit or empty-result 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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core question and followed by output shape and downstream usage. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical examples make it slightly crowded.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It still volunteers the return fields (name, URL, covered file names), which is a bonus rather than a requirement, but pagination/limit behavior is unaddressed for an open-world lookup.

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% and the single query parameter is already documented as 'a file path or name, or words'. The description largely restates that (path/name or words), adding little syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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+resource (find which SchemaStore schema applies to a file) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming validate_config and config_help as downstream consumers. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening any schema.

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?

Explains both accepted input styles (a file path/name, or words like kubernetes or eslint flat config) and the handoff pattern: feed the returned name or URL into validate_config or config_help. Clear context, though no explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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