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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. However, it adds meaningful scope: 'no project, job or compute' and the paging behavior ('pages of at most 24'), which are not present in annotations. These additions give agents a clearer behavioral model.

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 sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, followed by safety scope and then usage context. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return relevance. It does mention that node selection returns 'pinned Blender input/output indices and enum properties' and that search returns pages, which is useful. It is reasonably complete for a read-only discovery tool, though offset behavior and response structure could be more explicit.

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?

The schema describes `node` and `query`, but `limit` and `offset` have no descriptions. The description adds some meaning: 'pages of at most 24' clarifies limit, and 'select one node' clarifies the node parameter. However, `offset` is never explained, and the description does not fully compensate for the 50% schema coverage 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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Search supported shader aliases/native names in pages of at most 24, or select one node for pinned Blender input/output indices and enum properties.' It clearly differentiates the two modes (search vs. select) and relates the tool to material_recipe and scene_apply, making its role distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use the alias and exact sockets when editing a material_recipe proposal or scene_apply graph.' It also gives exclusions with 'no project, job or compute,' clarifying what the tool is not for. This provides clear guidance without needing to name an alternative tool.

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