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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it runs every pinned step (not a selected subset), in both unit systems, and yields a per-step pass/fail against the published figure. It does not mention runtime cost or failure behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the returned outcome. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so what remains is scoping — which the description supplies (all pinned steps, both unit systems). Only the absence of any failure/error behavior or cost expectation for a full re-run keeps it from a 5.

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 both slug and the detail enum are already documented with format and default. The description adds only the indirect signal that no unit or step-selection parameter exists ('both unit systems', 'every pinned step'); it does not clarify the detail modes. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Re-runs every pinned step of a worked construction estimate' and states the output ('returns whether each still meets the published figure'). This clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_example and from run_takeoff, which operate on takeoffs rather than pinned example steps.

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 verb 'Re-runs ... now' — you call it to verify a stored example's figures rather than to fetch one — but the description never states when to prefer it over get_example, nor any prerequisites (e.g. the example must exist or be pinned). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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