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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results affect equipment-adjusted valuations, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination, or rate limits, and the output schema exists to cover returns.

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 concise sentences with no waste, front-loading the purpose and then the usage context.

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?

Complete for a read-only search tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema for returns. The main gap is lack of parameter semantics for the query, but the description gives enough for an agent to call it in the intended context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'q' is for search text but provides no syntax, format, or examples for the query, and doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage and no added parameter details.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (avionics equipment names/types) and explains the output (avionics_ids that affect equipment-adjusted valuations), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_aircraft or search_make_models.

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 specifies a clear use case: 'Use to map panel/upgrade text to canonical ids.' This gives explicit context for when to invoke it, though it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions.

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