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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses ranking ('results with stored values come first'), a data-quality flag ('no stored values'), and the hard result cap that overrides the schema's nominal limit — all behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It also describes the returned record shape, which goes well past what the annotations declare.

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?

It is front-loaded with the search scope, then filters, then result shape and cap, then the follow-up tool — a logical order with no filler sentences. Dense parenthetical lists are used efficiently rather than restating the name or title.

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 5-parameter filtered search with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers scope, ranking, caps and the next-step tool, so an agent can call it correctly. The only gap is that it never states how the query is matched (substring vs exact designation) or what happens on zero results, which matters for a search tool.

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% and already documents query, limit, category, ship_area and manufacturer with examples and enum-like slugs. The description confirms which filter dimensions exist and reinforces the 8-result cap, but adds no new syntax, matching semantics or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the OceanSphere equipment library') and enumerates the covered equipment domains, the searchable fields (model designation, equipment type, keywords) and the optional filters. It also draws a clear boundary ('it is not a parts shop - OceanSphere does not list stock') that separates this tool from any parts/stock sibling.

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 gives concrete usage context: result cap of 8 with no paging, and an explicit handoff ('Use model_ref with get_equipment_model'), which routes the agent along the correct follow-up path. It does not explicitly contrast against find_by_manufacturer or say when manufacturer-only lookup is preferable, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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