plasticity_search_product_references

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

Annotations only declare read-only/open-world/non-destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond them: results are unverified leads cross-checked via Codex web-search/open-page, accessStatus is reported separately from licenseStatus, and the 30s–180s timeout default is stated. This is exactly the operational nuance annotations cannot convey.

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 dense paragraph but front-loaded with purpose and each sentence carries distinct information (verification status, access vs license, importer warning, timeouts). It is longer than ideal, yet no sentence is filler.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema tool with open-world behavior, the description covers what it returns (candidate leads with separate accessStatus/licenseStatus), the caveats on trustworthiness, and the non-mutating guarantee. The gap is that limit/intendedUse semantics and candidate result shape are never addressed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains allowedDomains (scoping) and searchTimeoutMs (default 180000, range 30000–180000), but adds nothing for query, limit, or intendedUse, leaving three of five parameters to inference.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Search live web sources for candidate CAD models and reliable dimensioned references'. It also states the boundary versus the import siblings ('never downloads/imports files or mutates CAD'), so an agent can distinguish it from plasticity_download_and_import_step or plasticity_import_reference_mesh without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear triggering context (discovery of leads, scoping with allowedDomains, preferring manufacturer sources) and an implicit when-not: a paid product page is not a direct asset URL and must not be handed to an importer. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tools to call after review, so it is strong but not a full routing rule.

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