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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: the response returns a total match count first and then up to `limit` rows of names/descriptions/families. It does not mention pagination beyond `limit` or latency, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what is searched and the accepted query forms. The return-shape and sibling-routing sentences each carry distinct load.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in and describes the return payload ordering and contents, and it covers both input modes (free-text query and exact family filter). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 type, default and max are already documented in the schema, as is the exact family enumeration. The description's parameter examples restate schema content rather than adding format or matching semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a precisely scoped resource (the UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database), including the authoritative publisher. It also distinguishes itself from its closest sibling, uiuc_airfoil_geometry, so an agent can separate them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: use uiuc_airfoil_geometry for coordinates and computed thickness/camber, implying this tool is for name/family discovery only. Query examples ("naca", "2412") concretely demonstrate the accepted input without ambiguity.

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