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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further by declaring the three possible verdicts and that a governing clause and compliant alternative are returned — important because there is no output schema. It does not mention the Pro API key/prerequisite in prose, leaving that to the schema's api_key description.

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?

Purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by return values, then routing guidance, then examples — a sensible order. Slightly padded by the '[PRO]' tag and three examples where two would likely suffice, but nothing is genuinely 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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the three return verdicts and the governing clause plus compliant alternative, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It lacks any note on the Pro API key requirement or failure modes, but the schema covers the key.

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 carries most semantics (baseline 3). The description adds value by showing via example inputs how trade, region, material specification, and use case combine into a single realistic query (e.g. '2.5mm2 TPS cable for 20A underground direct burial circuit NSW').

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 (checks a material/product/component against code requirements for a trade and jurisdiction) and explicitly names the sibling it is not (check_compliance). The enumerated return states plus the compliant-alternative output make the tool's job unmistakable.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('BEFORE ordering materials to avoid costly substitutions on site') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the correct alternative ('Do NOT use this tool for general compliance questions — use check_compliance instead'). Three worked example inputs demonstrate the expected query granularity.

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