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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds materially: it explicitly enumerates the side effects that are NOT performed (purchase, payment, account linking, source upload, companion authorization). That negates the exact actions an agent might otherwise infer from 'Buy device review link' and external-system involvement, resolving a real ambiguity the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then consequences, then parameter semantics, then the negative scope list — a sensible order. It is dense, and the final negation sentence is a long unpunctuated list, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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, the description need not document return shape, and annotations cover safety. For a zero-required-param orchestration tool spanning two systems, the description supplies scope, the handoff concept, and explicit non-actions; only a stated prerequisite (e.g., that an accessible project is needed for slug) is left implicit.

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 the schema baseline already carries the load, but the description still adds meaning: slug resolves an accessible saved project under existing permissions, and labwired_project/labwired_revision merely preserve an electronics reference rather than grant access. That 'reference, not authorization' framing is a useful semantic clarification beyond the field text.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Plan one device across KernelCAD and LabWired') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: companion tool names, project/revision links, the electronics-to-mechanics handoff, and a Buy device review link. That clearly separates it from the granular sibling tools (add_feature, solve_mates, export), none of which perform cross-system planning.

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?

'Use for robots, enclosures, PCB mounts or any hardware with electronics and mechanical parts' gives a concrete triggering condition, and 'returns companion tool names' implicitly routes the agent onward to the real work tools. It stops short of an explicit when-not or naming a competing tool, so it is clear context rather than full exclusion guidance.

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