xenmark_find_drawing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: the 20-project walk cap and the fact that truncation is reported, plus the shape of the result. Minor gap in not describing matching/fuzzy-match semantics.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage condition, then the operational caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, result fields, and the truncation limit. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the example format '1001-300'. The description's 'or within one project' merely restates what project_id's schema description already says, adding no syntax or matching detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find drawings by drawing number or name fragment') plus the scope (across the user's projects or within one), and even enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like xenmark_list_drawings or xenmark_list_projects.

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?

It gives an explicit selection condition: 'Use this when the user names a drawing rather than an id.' That routes the agent away from id-based lookups. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with xenmark_list_drawings, so the boundary with that sibling is left to inference.

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