Get keyboard dimensions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds that results include case dimensions and a review link. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or ordering, but with strong annotations and a simple read operation, this is sufficient context beyond structured fields.

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 tight sentences: the first states the return payload, the second gives the three invocation modes. No filler; the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (dimensions plus review link), how to call it (three modes), and its scope. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description gives examples that mirror the schema descriptions but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond what is already provided.

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?

The description states a specific verb (return measured case dimensions width x depth) and resource (keyboards reviewed on HLPlanet), with a link to each review. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on dimension data rather than sizes, comparisons, or desk fit.

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?

It gives explicit usage modes: search by name, list every keyboard of one size, or leave both empty to list all. This tells the agent exactly how to invoke it for different needs, implicitly contrasting with siblings like list_keyboard_sizes or compare_keyboards.

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