search_presets

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds that authorization is required and that only free servers are returned by default. It does not disclose response shape or pagination, but the readOnlyHint reduces the need to warn about side effects.

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 short sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the action and resource, the second states the one prerequisite not visible in the schema. 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?

For a read-only search with fully documented parameters, the definition is mostly sufficient, but it omits the scope=all behavior and does not clarify what 'подходящих' means or what a successful response contains. Since there is no output schema, a little more context would be needed for a 4.

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 all three parameters are already described; the description only repeats the 'vm.pico' name example from the schema and adds no new semantic detail. This is the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ('search') and resource ('free servers for a named preset') with an example preset, so an agent can tell it from preset-management tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar search siblings such as search_servers_by_tag or list_stock_servers, which keeps it from a 5.

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 text implies the use case—finding available free servers for a preset—and adds the authorization prerequisite. It does not state when to prefer another tool or mention the scope=all option that broadens search beyond free servers, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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