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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the result is always prefixed with 'dataModel.' and gives an example call, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior when the model name is not found, whether it returns a single value or array, or any side effects. For a simple lookup, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the purpose, gives a usage scenario, and provides an example call in two sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the example is directly useful for invocation. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, how to call it, and the prefix on the result. The only gap is the lack of explicit error behavior or return type specification, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 100% for the single parameter model_name, and the schema already explains what it is. The description adds an example invocation and clarifies the source context (NGSI-LD payload), but this is marginal. The parameter semantics are largely defined by the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: 'Find which SDM subject (repository group, always prefixed with 'dataModel.') a data model belongs to'. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('SDM subject'), and includes a concrete example that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_data_model, as it resolves the subject before that call.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you have an entity type from an incoming NGSI-LD payload but don't know its subject'. It also references dependent calls (get_data_model, validate_data), implying when not to use it and providing context. It lacks an explicit list of alternatives but sufficiently oriented the agent.

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