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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds behavior the annotations don't: it produces printable full-size drawings in SVG/DXF tiled onto paper, and the 'A pattern, not a fit' caveat warns against treating the output as a fitted result.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the transformation and then lists outputs; the enumeration is dense but every clause maps to a real capability. No filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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 an 11-parameter tool with nested objects, the description covers the core transformation, output formats, and paper layout, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. It omits how the optional 'shape' object relates to 'readings' (two alternative ways to describe the wall), and gives no guidance on inputUnits or rollWidth usage, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

With 82% schema description coverage, the schema already documents paper, formats, readings, allowance, rollWidth, etc. The description's phrases ('widest and narrowest gap', 'the width to start from', 'the strip to cut away') loosely map to readings/allowance but add no syntax, defaults, or guidance on the alternate shape-vs-readings input routes.

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 names a specific verb and resource — turning measured gaps into a scribe line — and enumerates the concrete outputs (widest/narrowest gap, start width, cut strip, full-size SVG and DXF, print layout). It never names a sibling tool, so the 5-level sibling-differentiation bar isn't met, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 use case is implied ('gaps measured off a straight line', 'for an uneven surface') and 'A pattern, not a fit' is a useful disambiguation from fitting tools like fit_panel and fit_worktop_run. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of alternatives such as print_template or create_drawing.

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