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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It adds the useful behavioral detail of a name-based fuzzy search, which is beyond what the schema states. However, it doesn't mention what happens on no match or multiple matches, nor the output of the operation, which would be helpful for a mutating tool.

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, each earning their place. The core action and the key differentiator (search by name) are front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 mutation operation with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and search behavior. However, it omits details that would be valuable for an agent, such as return values, error conditions (e.g., model not found, no process match), or whether this modifies an existing step or appends. Given the tool's 6 parameters, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 six parameters. The description's mention of 'name query' aligns with processQuery but doesn't add new parameter-level semantics beyond what's in the schema. The description adds no extra insight for other parameters like modelId or stepOrder.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Add a manufacturing process step') and target ('existing cost model'). It also explains the search-by-name mechanism, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'add_material_to_model' and 'search_processes'. This is a concise, unambiguous purpose.

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 phrase 'Searches the process database by name query — no need for exact IDs' implies when this tool is appropriate (when you have a name, not an ID). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, it provides enough context for an agent to avoid using ID-based tools. It stops short of a full comparison with siblings.

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