Search property and attribute definitions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: case- and accent-insensitivity, ranking orter (whole-word → word-start → substring, with the 4-letter minimum rule), pagination via total_matches/next_offset, and the key reassurance 'Reads definitions only, never property values'. It also discloses output units (m, m2, m3, radian) and match result fields. Nothing contradicts the read-only 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?

Long, but every sentence earns its place given 0% schema coverage and rich output semantics. It is front-loaded with purpose, then matching, per-parameter semantics, output contract, ranking, pagination, and finally safety. No filler, repetition of the title, or restating of annotations; the density is justified by the information load.

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 7-parameter fuzzy search with an output schema, the description covers match semantics, per-parameter meaning, result fields with units, ranking order, pagination mechanics, and a safety statement. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out — yet this goes beyond. Remaining gaps are 'port' semantics and any note on empty/no-match results, which are minor against this coverage. A 4 reflects that near- but not fully-complete state.

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 carry the semantics and largely does: kind gets its allowed values with examples, alternatives gets its count and translation use-case, editable_only gets its workflow caveat, and offset/limit are covered by the next_offset pagination sentence. query is implicit in the search framing. Only 'port' receives no explanation, and 6 of 7 parameters are meaningfully enriched. The gap on port prevents a 5.

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+resource: 'Fuzzy search over property and attribute definitions', and explains the purose — 'a caller does not need to know the exact Group/Name'. This distingushes it from sibling element-search and value-access tools (find_elements, get_element_data) by making clear it searches defintions, not instances. The title and description align precisely.

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 opening line gives the trigger context: use this when you don't know the exact Group/Name. It also routes workflow with siblings: 'check it before set_element_data' for editable_only, and the output 'property' field is 'the exact address find_elements, get_element_data, set_element_data and rules accept'. Missing an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g., if you already know the exact address, call the data tools directly), which prevents a 5.

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