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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose read-only behavior, return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. No wasted words, though it could add a bit more guidance without sacrificing conciseness.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how parameters interact, return structure, or usage boundaries. An agent would need to guess at behavior.

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 coverage is 50% (4 of 8 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning for type, working_area, and material, but does not explain q vs structured filters or price parameters. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'CNC machines', and lists specific filter dimensions (type, field dimensions, material). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like get_machine_detail (single machine details) and compare_machines (comparison) by focusing on searching/filtering.

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 implies usage for finding machines by criteria, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_machine_detail or list_categories. No exclusions or contextual hints are provided.

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