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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the tool evaluates, that it returns 'factible' plus a warning list, and that it acts as a structural compile-check. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is information-dense and well-structured, with the main behavior first, then outputs, then usage context. The 'compile-check' analogy adds clarity. It is slightly long with parenthetical repetitions, but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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?

Given the complex multi-variant schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: what it checks, what it returns, and when to call it. It does not enumerate non-goals or exclusions, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining invocation details.

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 100%, so the JSON Schema already documents that the single param contains the full furniture parameters. The description does not explain individual parameters, but that responsibility is adequately handled by the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reviewing whether a furniture piece can be safely assembled based on its geometry, and enumerates specific structural issues it detects (loose parts, cantilevers, rocking frames, tip-over risk, sag deflection). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name, but the 'before quoting or manufacturing' positioning and the validation focus make its role distinct enough.

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 gives explicit usage context: use it before quoting or manufacturing to catch structural problems. It implies the tool is a pre-production validation step rather than a quoting or design tool, though it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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