Search RoofScope reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating what comes back (scopeId, orderId, product, status values, hold reason, order date) even though no output schema exists. Minor gap: no mention of result caps or pagination.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the search target before the return contents and the follow-up hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and points to the follow-up tool, which is what an agent needs to chain calls. It stops short of noting result limits or whether matching is case-insensitive/partial, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds the non-obvious empty-string semantics ('Leave query empty for the most recent'), which is meaning the schema does not convey. It does not restate the schema's example format, which is fine.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('RoofScope reports ("scopes")'), with the searchable fields (address or name) stated. It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_roofscope_scope by scoping that tool to measurements, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: leave query empty for the most recent, and follow up with get_roofscope_scope using the returned scopeId. It routes to a sibling and states a default behavior, but does not state when-not-to-use this tool or any search limitations.

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