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

While the annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint: true), the description adds critical behavioral context: the output format includes specific fields like 'thumbnail, author, tags, likes', which informs the agent about the complexity of the expected return data. It also specifies the search scope (community library).

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?

The description is highly efficient, front-loading the core function and then adding crucial scope and alternative usage context in a logical flow without unnecessary 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?

Given the list of many related sibling tools, this definition provides sufficient distinction regarding its scope (existing uploads only) and output detail to ensure an AI agent selects it correctly without needing to consult multiple documentation pages.

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?

Although schema coverage is 67%, the description provides excellent semantic guidance via concrete examples ('articulated dragon', 'Raspberry Pi 5 case'). These examples significantly help the agent understand the expected format and scope of the 'query' parameter.

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 clearly defines the action (Find/Search), the resource (3D models), and the content (printable STL/3MF/OBJ files). It is immediately clear what the tool achieves.

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 provides explicit usage constraints by stating it searches 'existing uploads only' and directs the user to alternative tools like `prepare_3d_generation` and `open_cad_agent_link` for generative or CAD tasks.

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