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

With no annotations, description carries full burden and excels. It discloses that search is semantic, results are ranked by match and quality, each result includes a slug, and only public pre-generated diagrams are searched. It also explicitly states that no on-demand generation occurs—valuable behavioral context not inferable from schema.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, usage guidance, ranking explanation, and limitations. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose, then usage, then behavior, then caveat.

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 only 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what tool does, when to use, how queries work, what results contain, and limitations. The link to get_diagram provides necessary next-step guidance. Nothing relevant is missing.

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 100%, providing full descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the query should be natural language and that a full question works better, which goes beyond schema's generic example. It also clarifies limit's default behavior implicitly through schema, but description adds semantic search context.

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 provides a specific verb phrase ('Search Vectree's library of ~95,000 interactive concept diagrams by meaning, not keywords') that clearly distinguishes this tool from keyword searches and names the resource. It also differentiates from siblings by explaining the semantic nature and mentioning the relationship to get_diagram.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants a diagram, a visual explanation, a systems overview, or a map of how the parts of something fit together.' It also gives guidance on query formulation (full question works better than a bare keyword) and notes that nothing is generated on demand, implying no fallback. This provides clear context for selection over alternatives.

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