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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails. It only names the data returned, with no mention of filtering behavior, inclusion/exclusion of empty results, return structure, or side effects. The description is essentially a fragment that tells the agent nothing about how the tool behaves.

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 very short and free of fluff, which is conciseness in a limited sense. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, resembling a title or label more than a helpful explanation. It is not structured with front-loaded key information; it simply lacks substance.

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 simple getter with two optional parameters, the description should still explain what the returned values are (e.g., a list of terms, numeric values) and how the parameters affect results. The output schema is absent, so the description must cover return semantics, but it only states units. The tool's behavior around 'includeEmpty' and 'search' is undocumented, leaving the agent without enough context.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'search' and 'includeEmpty', so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameters, but it doesn't need to since the schema already documents them. No contradiction or significant gap exists here.

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 the resource ('motor power values') and units ('kW/HP'), which gives some indication of what the tool returns. However, it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'list', making it more of a label than a clear statement of purpose. It does somewhat distinguish from sibling tools like getPowerValues by specifying 'motor', but the intent is still vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getPowerValues or getTechnicalSpecs. The description does not mention the 'search' or 'includeEmpty' parameters, nor any context for when this tool is appropriate. This is a clear gap in usage guidance.

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