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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the return: a verdict with the rule id and version that decided it, or the missing fields. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful output semantics.

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 front-loaded with the core question, then immediately states the return format and gives a compact example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only compatibility check with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, the return value (verdict, rule id/version, or missing fields), and provides an example call. Annotations handle safety, and the schema handles parameter typing, so nothing critical is missing.

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 both parameters as part id/slug and printer/hotend id/slug. The description's example showing concrete IDs adds a small amount of format guidance, but it does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb+resource: checking whether a part fits a machine. It is distinct from siblings like check_stock or get_product, but it does not explicitly name an alternative such as compare, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over a general comparison.

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?

Usage is implied by the question format and the example, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare or check_stock. The example helps illustrate a typical call but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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