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

The description describes a write operation (rendering a deliverable) but the annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates it is read-only. This is a direct contradiction. Beyond the contradiction, it adds tier constraints and wire shape details, but the contradiction severely undermines transparency.

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 two sentences that efficiently cover the core purpose, tier differences, and wire shape. No extraneous information.

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 input schema and existence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: rendering action, deliverable types, tier restrictions, and endpoint match. It does not explain the return value, but that's handled by the output schema.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds marginal value. It reiterates the wire shape and tier constraints but does not explain individual fields beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 it renders previously-computed BoQ results into Excel or Word deliverables. It specifies the tier differences: Excel is free with watermark and sheet protection, Word is paid-only. This distinguishes it from sibling compute tools.

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 that compute results must be obtained first ("previously-computed BoQ results") and provides tier-specific guidance (Excel vs Word). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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