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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and "Maglev parts catalog" reinforces the closed-world scope. The description adds real value by explaining matching semantics (part number, brand, spec words like "48V", "Orin NX"), but says nothing about result pagination, ordering, or what a hit record contains.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the resource and the matching capability, followed by the filter surface. No filler and no 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?

Five parameters (all optional) and no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a search returns — yet it never describes the result shape or how limit/empty-query behaviour manifests in practice. What it does cover (purpose, matching, filters) is adequate for a read-only search, but the return side is a real gap.

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 80%, so the schema carries most of the load, and this hits the baseline. The prose does add meaning for the filter parameters — "where it is made" ties to lens and NDAA status to ndaa_only — but limit and category get no elaboration beyond what the enum already shows.

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+resource ("Search the Maglev parts catalog") and enumerates the domains covered (compute modules, motors/drivers, actuators, drone parts) plus the match fields (part number, brand, spec words). An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from get_part or compare_parts from the description alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 is implied rather than stated: the multi-word/spec-word matching and origin/NDAA filters signal this is the broad discovery entry point, but there is no explicit "use this when you know keywords; use get_part when you have an ID" routing. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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