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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses the result payload (world, coordinates, box size, description, generator-opening link) and the constraint that only places OrbitStudio can actually open are searchable.

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 tight sentences: scope first, trigger condition second, return shape third. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, including query examples and the world/limit constraints, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's mention of named places reinforces that query matches names but adds no syntax or matching-rule detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and a precisely delimited resource ('named places OrbitStudio can open directly'), then enumerates the content types (craters, mountains, valleys, basins, landing sites) and worlds covered. An agent can tell this apart from list_worlds and the product/preview siblings without opening any schema.

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 explicit triggering conditions: 'when the user names or describes a place to 3D print, or asks what there is on a world.' No exclusions or named alternative are offered, so there is slight residual ambiguity with list_worlds for world-level browsing, but the usage context is clear.

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