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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some behavioral context: 'usable' implies filtering or validation of presets, and 'exact' indicates precision matching. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or how results are ordered. It also does not clarify the meaning of 'usable' or whether partial matches are allowed. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is concise and to the point, mentioning search criteria without unnecessary elaboration. Every segment earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for understanding return values. It does not state what the tool returns or how to interpret results (e.g., a list of preset IDs, names, or full details). It also does not clarify when to prefer this finder over the sibling generator tools. For a search tool, this is a significant 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?

The schema covers the 'query' parameter with a clear description, so the description's repetition of search fields ('by product name, brand, product line, dimensions, or article number') adds no new value. The 'limit' parameter has no description in the schema and none in the overall description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should have compensated, but it does not explain the purpose or behavior of the limit parameter (e.g., max results, pagination).

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 what the tool does: 'Find usable Extrabold Tools drawer presets and exact Eurobox or KLT models'. It specifies the resource (drawer presets and exact models) and the search criteria (product name, brand, product line, dimensions, article number). This distinguishes it from sibling generator tools like create_gridfinity_baseplate_url and generate_gridfinity_grid, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a search/find use case and contextualizes the tool as a lookup. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. For instance, it does not say 'use the generator tools to create new presets'. The context from sibling names suggests this tool is for finding existing presets, but explicit guidance is missing. Still, the intended usage is clear from the verb 'Find'.

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