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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (summaries with overall size in mm, category, and free status) — useful because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, how filters combine, or auth requirements, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a 7-parameter search.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return summary and the zero-argument flexibility. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose and return shape but omits pagination, filter combination logic, and the meaning of the kind enum. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent may need to probe.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description loosely mirrors several of them ('category', 'group', free status) but adds no new semantics for kind, year, or the interaction between filters, leaving roughly a third of the parameters unelaborated in either place.

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 and resource — 'Search the Xem Studio library of real-object geometry' — and enumerates the content domains (boards, batteries, fasteners, tri-clamp fittings, etc.). The search-vs-fetch distinction against get_geometry is implied by the verb but never made explicit, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 closing note 'Any argument may be omitted' tells the agent the tool can be invoked with zero filters to browse the whole library, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to prefer find_geometry over get_geometry, get_free_files, or get_fits, and gives no exclusions.

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