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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open world). The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: pagination is per category, capped at 100, full section polylines are omitted, and next_offset drives subsequent pages.

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 action and then adds only essential details: units, pagination behavior, returned content, and omitted content. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant framing.

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 read-only annotations, an output schema, and patterned ID parameters, the description provides enough detail to invoke and page the tool. It still lacks guidance on how this inspection relates to sibling tools like suggest_seed, which would complete the picture.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially explains pagination parameters via 'max 100 per category' and 'next_offset', but gives no semantics for the required workspace_id and mesh_id parameters, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: inspect seed landmarks, with units (mm) and pagination scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools such as suggest_seed or list_faces, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 description gives a pagination instruction ('Follow next_offset for more points') but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like suggest_seed or list_faces. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are provided.

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