Find elements by criteria

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: server-side property reads, no API-side property filtering, coverage differences between whole-plan and model-elements-only, safety caveat that 0 is not proof of absence for 2D elements, and refusal of reads over the element ceiling. This goes far beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the main grouping semantics, then covers property resolution, edge cases, return values, and performance constraints without repetition. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 description covers what the tool returns, when it can fail (ceiling refusal), how coverage affects interpretation of results, how to find property addresses, and how to structure groups. Combined with a rich input schema and output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Despite the schema adding field-level descriptions, the tool description compensates with critical semantics: groups combine with OR, inner comparisons use logical_operator, unary vs binary operator behavior, value units, and the no-usable-value edge case. It also tells the agent to call search_definitions for exact property addresses, which is essential for correct parameter construction.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find elements matching criteria groups.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_definitions (finds property addresses) and get_element_data (reads element data) by focusing on criteria-based selection. The OR/group semantics make the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: call search_definitions to resolve property addresses, and narrow with element_types, story, or classification to avoid ceiling refusals. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement for alternatives like list_instances or get_element_data, so it falls just short of a 5.

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