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

The readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld annotations already communicate the safety profile, and the description adds context by explaining how result blocks are applied (`interfaces:` vs `addIns:`) and what distinguishes an AddIn (DefaultInstanceBrowseName). It does not detail no-match behavior or the exact response shape, but for a read-only lookup tool the provided context is valuable.

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?

Four sentences carry the entire necessary message with examples, a preference rule, technical application syntax, and a decision rule. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what to pass, what to expect back, and how to apply the results. It leaves some open questions (e.g., behavior when no match is found, pagination), but those are minor for this level of complexity.

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 schema already documents `query`, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches it with additional example keywords (DeviceHealth, Location) and links the query semantics to the output decision (single property vs. sub-object). That meaningfully clarifies what kinds of inputs yield Interfaces versus AddIns.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: find reusable Interfaces/AddIns by capability, with concrete example keywords. It clearly says what the tool returns (standard blocks that already expose the capability), but it never names or contrasts sibling tools such as search_types or list_types, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to prefer an existing reusable block over inline redefinition, and it provides a concrete decision rule: a single property should use an Interface, while a whole named sub-object should use an AddIn. This tells the model when to call this tool and how to choose between the two result categories.

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