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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the returned fields—dotted paths, one-line summary, tier, and engines—which is especially useful given there is no output schema.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and examples, then states the return format and the follow-up action, earning every sentence.

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?

Given four parameters, robust read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what to search, what results look like, and what to do next. It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is appropriate, and only omits minor guidance about alternative tools.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds useful query examples ('box solid', 'fillet edges') but does not materially extend the meaning of limit, engine, or version 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find Bitbybit API members' by keywords, with concrete examples. It also defines the scope (methods, namespaces, cloud operations) and the return payload, making it easy to distinguish from broader siblings like 'search'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: searching for API members before writing code, and it explicitly directs the caller to 'Call describe with a path before writing code that uses it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the workflow guidance is clear.

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