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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covered by annotations, the description still adds real behavioral context: it returns 'configuration, review revision, warnings and browser link', requires auth without consuming quote allowance, and performs no purchase. That is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond the structured fields. It does not flag the mild tension of a readOnly-hinted tool producing a persisted editable draft.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then output then auth/billing caveats, with essentially no filler. Densely packed but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values, but it still names the return shape. Auth and billing posture are disclosed, and the fixture types and input modes are stated. The only residual gap is how to obtain the 'supported STL' constraint or where draft state lives, which is a minor omission for a complex 5-parameter tool.

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 schema already documents quantity, stlUnits, stlBase64, accessToken and the entire nested parameters object with ranges and enums. The description only adds the top-level provenance choice ('from dimensions or a supported straight-extrusion STL'). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 set: 'Locating nests, clamped fixtures and soft jaws from dimensions or a supported straight-extrusion STL.' It also scopes the deliverable ('Prepare or revise an editable draft'), and the closing 'no quote allowance / no purchase' lines implicitly separate it from quote_workholding and printing.checkout.create. It stops just short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

Clear context is given ('prepare or revise an editable draft') and the negative statements ('Uses authentication but no quote allowance. No purchase occurs.') act as boundary conditions excluding the quoting/ordering path. No alternative tool is named by name, so the agent must infer the routing to quote_workholding.

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