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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so an agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the 'natural-language' interpretation but doesn't disclose return format or limitations. This is adequate but not rich given the annotation coverage.

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 a single focused sentence, with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate for making the call but doesn't explain what the response will contain (a list of capabilities? identifiers? descriptions?). Given the sibling list, an agent could infer it returns relevant capability names, but the description itself leaves that gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'query' is a natural-language engineering task, which adds meaning beyond the bare 'string' type. But it doesn't give examples, formats, or expected phrasing, so it only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a resource ('Solvion machine capabilities'), and adds a qualifier ('relevant to a natural-language engineering task') that distinguishes it from the calculation-oriented siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'relevant to a natural-language engineering task' implies when to use it (when you have a natural-language task), but it gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't tell the agent when to prefer a specific calculator sibling instead, so guidance is only implied.

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