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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a topic inventory and no further behavioral detail such as ranking, return format, or query behavior, which is acceptable but minimal given the low bar set by annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is well-sized for a simple two-parameter search, though the topic enumeration could be tightened.

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 read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing critical is missing; there is no output schema to explain. The only real gap is the absence of any routing guidance versus the sibling 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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented inline (including min/max and default), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's topic list loosely maps to what a query can contain but adds no syntax, phrasing, or format guidance 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('CordFind', generator guides) and enumerates covered topics, so the agent knows what content is reachable. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the siblings calculate_generator_cord_size and get_connector_compatibility, leaving the boundary between search-only and action-oriented tools implicit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a sibling (e.g., calculate_generator_cord_size) would be the better choice, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The topical list hints at scope but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right pick.

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