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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses behavior an agent would otherwise have to discover: total is always returned, the list defaults to 20 and caps at 50, results are ordered OEM and curated first, and calls consume the daily records quota. Quota cost and ordering are exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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-loads what the tool is and what it returns, then packs search semantics and quota notes into a tight block with no filler sentences. It is dense — several clauses compressed into one paragraph — but every clause carries information.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary; the description still covers quota cost, ordering, default and cap, and the fields searchable via q. For a read-only directory lookup with 5 optional params, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 80% and the schema already documents q, uf, layer and country, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: the exact fields q searches, that accents are ignored, sample queries, and the 20/50 limit behavior — though it says nothing extra about uf or country beyond the schema.

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 resource (a directory of companies accredited/registered to make or sell aircraft parts) and enumerates the source layers it covers. The closing line "It is a directory, not a stock check" explicitly bounds the purpose against a plausible misinterpretation.

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: the free-text q is described by what it matches plus worked examples ("pneus", "PT6A", "Pratt"), and the quota/ordering behavior tells the agent what to expect per call. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. jt_mro_capabilities or jt_company_search), so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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