reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses confidence labels, filtering semantics, top-3 result behavior, and cross-tool guidance for writing part models. It does not state read-only or discuss auth/rate limits, but as a reference tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 content is dense and informative but presented as one run-on paragraph without bullet structure; topics are packed into parentheses and examples are tacked on at the end. It is not poorly worded, but it could be much clearer with front-loaded formatting.

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 lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers a large number of topics, gives parameter examples, and provides cross-tool instructions. The main gap is the undocumented 'detailed' parameter and lack of explicit exclusion guidance, but overall the agent has enough to operate.

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 description adds meaning for topic, diameter_mm, shaft_mm, and bore_mm through examples, and for query by saying it filters entries. However, at 0% schema coverage, it still fails to explain the 'detailed' parameter and leaves query syntax largely implicit.

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 identifies the tool as a source of engineering reference data for 3D-printed parts, lists its topic coverage, and explains the query/topic behavior. It lacks an explicit verb like 'query' or 'lookup' and does not contrast with siblings, but the purpose is clear from the content and examples.

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 provides concrete usage cues, e.g. topic='fits' with diameter_mm names a hole and shaft_mm/bore_mm determines a fit class. It does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use the tool, but the examples and topic list give clear conditions for use.

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