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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: returned fields include drafter commentary, room names, a preview image, a studio link, and account-gated DXF/DWG/PDF links; download links expire after 10 minutes and must be re-fetched. It also explains the blocking wait semantics for running drawings, which is exactly the kind of context annotations do not cover.

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 purpose and entry point are front-loaded in the first clause, and nearly every phrase carries useful information (returned artifacts, link expiry, waiting). However, it is a single dense sentence with nested parentheticals, so readability could be improved by splitting the return-contents and wait behavior into separate sentences.

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, annotations establish the safety profile, and the schema fully documents both parameters. The description fills the remaining gaps—what the response contains, link lifetime, account gating, and blocking wait behavior—leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 drawing_id and wait_seconds are already documented in the schema, including the wait_seconds default and maximum. The description restates the wait behavior ('waits up to wait_seconds') without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('check a drawing') and anchors it to the exact lifecycle tools that produce one ('start_cad_drawing', 'list_my_cad_drawings'). It also enumerates what is retrieved (status, drafter feedback, room names, preview, links), so an agent can distinguish it from change_cad_drawing or prepare_cad_drawing_link without opening the schema.

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 clearly says when to use this tool: after start_cad_drawing or when a drawing came from list_my_cad_drawings, and it explains the waiting behavior for in-progress drawings. It does not explicitly exclude cases or name sibling alternatives for mutation (e.g., change_cad_drawing), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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