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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a list of machines with specific fields, which is helpful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or result ordering. This is acceptable given the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the core purpose, then specifies the output fields, and closes with a concrete usage example. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, yet it still lists the key returned fields. It covers the main search criteria and provides an example, which is sufficient for an agent to call the tool. Minor gaps include not mentioning the 'q' and 'limit' parameters explicitly, but those have schema descriptions. Overall, it's complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 50% (q, limit, material, working_area have descriptions). The description compensates by stating that search is by type, material, working area, category, and price, thereby adding meaning to type, category, max_price, and min_price. The example further illustrates valid values. However, it does not fully detail each parameter's accepted values or formats, leaving some gaps.

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 purpose: searching CNC machines by type, material, working area, category, and price. It also specifies the return fields (id, name, price, working area, spindle, link) and provides a concrete example, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_machine_detail or calculate_machine_price.

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 says 'Первый шаг подбора' (first step of selection), which gives clear usage context but does not mention any alternatives or when not to use this tool. It doesn't compare itself to get_machine_detail, compare_machines, or other siblings, so an agent lacks guidance on routing between them.

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