Search the directory catalog

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world; the description adds useful behavior: results are ordered by Domain Rating and the catalog is capped at 20 before first launch purchases. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid added context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mode, then the visibility caveat. No wasted wording.

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 9-parameter search tool with rich schema docs and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, id read, and the top-20 business rule. It remains thin on pagination and return shape, but cursor and limit are in the schema and no output schema is present.

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 78%, so the schema documents most filters and modes, including directory_id and min_dr. The description reinforces ordering and id lookup but does not add syntax or meaning for q, kind, limit, topic, cursor, audience, or requires.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Searches the directories') and adds ordering plus an id-read mode, making the catalog scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling directory tools such as project_directories or add_directories, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It implies two modes (query search or directory_id read) and notes the pre-purchase top-20 limit, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for catalog discovery rather than project directory management.

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