search_presets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the catalog is optional and local, and presets missing from the last on-disk inventory are excluded from results. This informs the agent about potential empty or partial results without contradicting the 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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose and productSlug behavior front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a non-obvious filtering behavior without redundancy. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter search tool, the description gives enough to invoke correctly: catalog scope, name search, product filter, and an exclusion rule. It does not describe return shape or pagination, but no output schema exists and 'Search' implies matching results. The main ambiguity is what 'optional local NKS preset catalog' and 'last inventory' refer to, but this is not blocking.

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?

With 80% schema coverage, the schema already documents tags, query, favorite, and productSlug. The description adds useful meaning by tying 'by name' to the query parameter and explaining that productSlug narrows the otherwise cross-product search. However, it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter or add detail on tags/favorite beyond the schema.

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 ('Search'), resource ('optional local NKS preset catalog'), and scope ('across every product unless productSlug is given'). This differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_browser_items and search_local_splice_samples. The phrase 'by name' also clarifies the primary access path.

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 context that this is for the optional local NKS preset catalog and clarifies product scoping, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over sibling search tools. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated as a rule or exclusion. An agent gets context but no direct routing guidance.

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