find_features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about scope, what is returned, or how features are matched.

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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy; it is not a sentence, has no front-loaded action verb, and conveys no actionable instruction.

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 a required parameter, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly. Nothing compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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% for the single required 'family' parameter, so the schema contributes nothing; the description's mention of holes and bolt circles weakly suggests possible feature families but never ties them to the argument. The required 'family' string remains effectively undocumented.

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 is a noun fragment ('Отверстия и окружности болтов.' = 'Holes and bolt circles.') with no verb and no statement of what the tool does with them. It only hints at the feature types involved, and it does not distinguish find_features from related siblings like inspect_part, measure, or locate_defects.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool, when to prefer an alternative, or what preconditions apply. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.

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