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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it produces 'a reasoned verdict per check' and states that every cited number is a 'corroborated attribute', giving insight into output quality and verification expectations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The em-dash list of constraint categories is efficient and every clause adds actionable detail without repetition or fluff.

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?

The tool is complex with multiple engineering check categories, but the description maps those domains and clarifies output behavior (verdict per check, corroborated numbers). The presence of an output schema covers return value details, so the description is sufficient for selection and basic invocation, though a bit more detail on input expectations would round it out.

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 67%, with part_ids lacking a description; the description's 'part set' phrasing helps clarify it. build_id and project_context already have schema descriptions, and the description reinforces build_id's purpose via 'the build's engineering constraints'. project_context is not mentioned, but the schema covers it.

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 opens with a specific verb ('evaluates'), names the resource ('part set against the build's engineering constraints'), and enumerates concrete check categories such as supply windows, stall vs peak current, and shaft/wheel fit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_parts or search_parts.

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 description implies the appropriate context — use it when you have a set of parts and need engineering-constraint verification with reasoned verdicts. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like compare_parts, nor does it provide exclusion guidance.

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