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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds two genuinely non-obvious rules: unknown requirement values never satisfy an explicit filter (conservative matching, so results are a floor not a ceiling), and market links are not a stock/availability signal. Still silent on pagination behavior, result ordering, and whether prices are converted or raw reference values.

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?

Two compact sentences, no filler, with the filtering scope front-loaded and the two caveats trailing. Every clause carries information.

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?

A 16-parameter, fully optional filter tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema needs more: nothing says what a result record contains, how 'reference price' relates to currency, or that limit caps at 20 and offset at 1000. The two caveats given are high value, but the parameter surface is largely undescribed.

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 coverage is only 25% across 16 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does so only partially: 'reference budget' usefully implies maxReferencePrice is non-binding, and 'buying-link market' explains the market enum's meaning. But scale, limit/offset, search, currency, language, minPowerW, minWorkWidthMm, and software get nothing, and 'process'/'material/use' map to the enums only by guesswork.

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 ('Filter') and resource ('researched machines') plus the dimensions filtered on (process, material/use, budget, market, workshop requirements). It is clearly a search/list tool rather than a calculator like the siblings, though the vocabulary ('process', 'workshop requirements') does not map 1:1 to the schema's 'category'/'ventilation'/'enclosed' fields, so the match takes a small inference.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus compare_machines, find_laser_material, or get_buying_options, and no prerequisites. The two sentences present are matching semantics, not usage guidance. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step that precedes comparison/pricing tools.

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