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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the connector-specific return shape and the relationship between `id` and `fetch`.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful next-step hint and an explicit alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only search with an output schema, the description plus annotations is nearly sufficient. It names the alternative search_addons and points to fetch, though it leaves the exact query semantics unstated.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the `query` parameter beyond what the name implies. The `id` note refers to returned documents, not the input, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 action (search) on a specific resource (the fsaircraft.net MSFT add-on catalog) and describes the output contract (documents shaped for ChatGPT connectors). It also points to the sibling search_addons, so an agent can tell this tool apart from the more filter-oriented search.

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 says to prefer search_addons when filters or prices matter, giving a clear decision rule. It also tells the agent that returned `id` values are add-on slugs to pass to `fetch`, which links to the next step in a workflow.

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