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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned page (driver, connection settings, address syntax with examples, readable values, tips, FAQ) and the no-match behavior, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether the call answers its question.

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?

The purpose and return contents are front-loaded, the examples and fallback each earn their place. The first sentence is a long run-on that stacks several enumerations, which slightly reduces scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the returned content, and it does so concretely. The only gap is the language parameter's fallback behavior when a language is unavailable, which is only hinted at by the schema wording.

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 both the query string and the language enum are already documented in the schema. The description's example values illustrate acceptable query forms but add no rules about matching, normalization or what to do when a query is ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Checks whether a PLC, CNC, controller family, model, brand or protocol is supported") and immediately broadens the accepted input space with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like price_quote, product_info and search_docs, which do not describe support lookups.

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?

Usage context is clear: call this when you need to know whether a device or protocol is supported, and the sample queries ("S7-1200", "Modbus RTU", "IEC 104") show the expected granularity. The no-match fallback ("it lists the supported protocols") gives useful recovery guidance. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer search_docs or product_info instead.

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