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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real operational behavior the annotations cannot: that a single row can exceed ~90K characters due to large applicability lists, and that slim=true trades those strings for an applicability_summary so the endpoint stays usable. That payload/limit guidance is unusually valuable, though it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the use case, then the large-payload caveat. Dense but every clause adds information; the final sentence is long but justified by the concrete 90K+ figure and the slim mitigation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, use case, the make_model_id filter, and the payload-size hazard, leaving only minor gaps such as what q matches against and default/pagination behavior for limit.

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 only 25%, with q and limit undocumented in both schema and description. The description does explain make_model_id's role and slim's effect and rationale, partially compensating, but two of four parameters carry no meaning anywhere — so the description is incomplete rather than fully compensating.

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 STC records) plus the optional filter (make_model_id) and the returned content (certificate numbers, descriptions, applicability). It is clearly distinguishable from the adjacent search tools in the family (search_airworthiness_directives, search_avionics, search_make_models) by naming the STC record type.

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?

Gives concrete usage context — pre-buy due diligence and documenting mods that affect value — which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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