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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the access model — public/unlisted use slug as capability while private projects require the owner's OAuth connection. It also emphasizes immutability of the returned revision.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the resource and scope, the second gives the workflow and the access caveat. Front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained; the description still hints at what to do with the result ('hash or inspect'). Auth requirements and input provenance are covered, leaving little an agent needs missing before calling it.

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 coverage is 100%, so both params are already documented with provenance and constraints. The description reinforces that the slug/version come from open_in_studio but adds no format or syntax meaning beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('the exact immutable .kcad source and parameters'), scoped to a prior open_in_studio version. This clearly separates it from get_project and get_latest_render, which return current/other artifacts.

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?

Gives concrete context: 'Use this to read-after-write verify a release' and ties the slug/version inputs back to open_in_studio. It stops short of naming a mutually exclusive alternative for other retrieval needs, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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