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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's enumeration of returned fields is content that largely overlaps the output schema, and it adds no new behavioral context such as whether this is a fixed catalog, ordering, or filtering behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly padded by listing return fields that the output schema already documents, but no sentence is wasted.

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 0 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values or permissions. It adequately covers what the tool returns, leaving only minor gaps around selection guidance.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify parameter usage, and none is missing.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('fabric IDs') and enumerates the attributes returned (locking angles, tow pitch, thickness, UD settings). That is enough to distinguish it from sibling list_* tools by resource, but it offers no explicit contrast with any sibling or usage framing.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., list_samples, load_sample) and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is implied by the resource name itself, which is minimal.

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