Search Hark Tech's printable model catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are licence-filtered to commercial printing only, and it lists the fields each result carries — context the annotations cannot convey. Missing only edge-case behavior (zero results, total counts).

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?

Front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then licensing constraint, then result shape, then a compact Args block. Every line is functional; the only slack is that the 'Each result has…' sentence could be folded into the opening.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, plus it discloses the licence filter and pagination size — enough for an agent to call it and interpret results. Total-result counts and empty-result handling are the only unaddressed pieces for a search tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it explains query as a natural-language description of what the person wants with three concrete examples, and supplies the page-size fact ('10 per page') that the schema omits. It does not state the page default or pagination termination, leaving a small gap.

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) plus the exact resources (Printables and Thingiverse models) and adds a hard scope constraint: only models whose licence allows commercial printing. The phrase 'that Hark Tech can print and price' cleanly separates it from siblings like quote_my_file (user-supplied files) and search_repair_services.

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?

'Use when the person wants a ready-made model printed' gives a clear positive trigger and implicitly rules out quoting a customer's own file. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (quote_my_file) outright, so the routing is clear but not explicit.

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