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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. Description adds context about the ranking nature and a critical FoV rule, but doesn't disclose rate limits or return format.

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 sentences are efficient and front-loaded: first for purpose, second for usage guidance and a key constraint. No wasted words.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a workflow but lacks details on output format and prerequisites. It clarifies usage intent well but could be more complete about the ranking output.

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 only 13%, with only sensorPartNumber described. The description adds general context for parameters (e.g., application, working distance, FoV) but does not explain maxResults, requireInStock, etc. Does not fully compensate for low coverage.

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 'Rank Commonlands M12 lenses and C-mount lenses for an application note,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming calculate_field_of_view and match_lens_to_sensor as follow-up 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?

Explicitly says to use as an 'application shortlist helper' then call sibling tools for final FoV, and warns against estimating from catalog fields. However, it doesn't address when to use this versus other siblings like compare_lenses.

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