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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful selection constraint—results must have both a public map render and a downloadable bounded world snapshot—but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or other runtime behavior beyond what annotations and schema already suggest.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior, explains the required inclusion criteria, and lists relevant optional filters. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary context.

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 that the tool is a read-only search, all parameters are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, the description captures the essential selection criteria well. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing this tool over closely related siblings, but the core requirements of the tool are clear enough for correct invocation.

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 all six optional parameters already carry adequate descriptions. The tool description only echoes group, dimension, and capture date filters, and it omits query and limit, so it adds little semantic value beyond the input schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Find', and identifies a precise resource: preserved 2b2t builds. It further differentiates the tool from siblings by requiring both a public map render and a downloadable bounded world snapshot, which distinguishes it from general location or group build 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?

The optional filters for group, dimension, and capture dates imply a search-oriented use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like get_group_builds or get_world_downloads, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage context is present but mostly inferred.

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