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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: output includes a 'reasoned verdict per check' and every cited number is a 'corroborated attribute', which tells the agent about result trustworthiness and traceability.

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, both front-loaded: the first scopes the evaluation, the second adds the trust/provenance signal. The constraint enumeration is dense but each item is informative rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplements with verdict reasoning and data corroboration, leaving little an agent needs that is unstated; only explicit routing versus sibling analysis tools is absent.

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 description coverage is 67%, with build_id's default behavior and project_context's ranking/logging behavior already documented in the schema. part_ids carries no schema description, but its name and list bounds make it self-evident. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Evaluates a part set against the build's engineering constraints') and enumerates the concrete constraint families checked (supply windows, stall vs peak current, shaft/wheel fit, interfaces, solar chain). It is clearly more than a spec diff, implicitly separating it from compare_parts, though it never names a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'against the build's engineering constraints' and the per-check verdict output, so an agent can infer this is the validation step over a set of parts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as compare_parts or get_part.

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