cad_tool_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds only the catalog-scope fact and says nothing about result volume, pagination, default limits, or whether hardware/internal entries are included by default — behavior an agent needs to predict what comes back from a search tool.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and the differentiating scope front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined compression.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. Still, for a search tool with six undocumented filter parameters and no stated query semantics, the definition leaves real gaps an agent must guess at before calling.

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% and the single top-level parameter is a nested request object with six fields (query, family, risk, limit, include_hardware, include_internal), none documented in the schema. The description supplies no meaning for any of them — no query syntax, no allowed family or risk values, no note on the include_* toggles — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search the complete OSS CAD Suite catalog") and adds a distinguishing scope note that it covers tools not exposed as workflows, which separates it from workflow-oriented siblings like cad_tool_run. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the purpose is 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 clause "including tools not exposed as workflows" implies a use case: discovery of catalog entries that lack a workflow counterpart. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus cad_tool_help or cad_tool_run, no stated prerequisites, and no guidance on what query terms or filters select.

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