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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: passing species merges collection techniques with species-guide recommendations. It does not disclose result ordering or pagination, but for a read-only search this is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage triggers and a conditional species behavior. Every sentence earns its place; the examples are compact and useful.

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 read-only search tool with all parameters optional and fully documented, the description covers intent routing, the special species behavior, and the domain. No output schema exists, but return values are unlikely to affect correct invocation. It could briefly mention the shape of results, but nothing critical 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for species: it explains that the parameter is not merely a filter but triggers inclusion of species-guide-recommended techniques. It also anchors query semantics to user intents like 'como pescar' and 'nó'. Other parameters (limit, category) are already fully documented in 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Busca técnicas e nós de pesca no acervo da iscabox'. It clearly marks the tool as a search over fishing techniques and knots, which separates it from sibling search tools focused on equipment, locations, or species, and from get_technique, which implies single-record retrieval.

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 description gives explicit triggers: use when the user asks how to fish, which technique to use, or how to tie a knot. It also explains when to pass species. It does not name any sibling or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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