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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns not only raw specs but computed recommendations produced by the same heat engine as the site. The read-only safety profile is reinforced, and the computational nature of the output is disclosed beyond what the schema provides.

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 well-structured sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists what is returned. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 only two optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the search target and enumerates the return groups (specs, bake settings, deck material). A small gap is the lack of any note about empty results or how type/query interact, but this is not essential for a search tool.

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 both 'type' and 'query' are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level nuance, but it does provide useful top-level framing ('oven database'). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Pandough oven database'), and enumerates the concrete return contents: oven specs and recommended bake settings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flours and get_flour_details, which target a different resource.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need oven specs and Neapolitan-specific bake settings. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer plan_bake or troubleshoot, and no exclusionary 'use this instead of X' note. The context is clear but alternatives are not compared.

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