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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful non-annotated context: each result carries difficulty, time, cost, and part/file/step counts, which tells the agent what the payload looks like. No pagination or result-count behavior beyond the default limit, though.

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and over what domain, the second covers filtering and the empty-query case. No filler, no repetition of the 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on describing the result shape (difficulty, time, cost, counts) and enumerates the filter vocabularies. It is nearly complete except for sort/limit behavior on a five-parameter 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 only 20% (just 'category'), so the description compensates by enumerating all seven category slugs and the three difficulty values, plus the empty-query browse behavior. It leaves sort and limit semantics unexplained, which remains a gap.

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?

Specific verb (Find) plus the exact resource (PrintPal step-by-step build guides) and its scope (Arduino/ESP32 electronics, 3D-printed enclosures, robots, props, etc.). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_3d_models, search_learning_resources, and get_build_guide.

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?

Gives concrete selection conditions: filter by category or difficulty, and 'leave query empty to browse featured guides.' However, it never names the alternatives (search_learning_resources, search_3d_models, get_build_guide) or states when to prefer this tool over them.

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