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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and "Read-only" merely repeats that. The description does add that it interrogates the CIVIL NX build per result-source kind rather than reading model data, which is useful context, but it says nothing about output size, cost of probing all seven sources, or what happens if the build doesn't answer.

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-loaded with a short identifier sentence, but the core sentence is a long run-on with a seven-item parenthetical and four coordinated clauses. Every element is informative, yet the density makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe the shape of the answer: table token, returned columns and their mapping, output-point tokens, and published result series. Combined with the trigger condition this is nearly complete; only failure/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the nested units object with its force/length enums and "MIDAS converts / Default: the model's own" note is fully documented in the schema. The description does not mention units at all, so it adds nothing on top of 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 (probe/ask the build) and a specific resource (table tokens, columns, output-point tokens and result series per result source), enumerating the seven sources it covers. It is clearly distinct from concurrent_forces (the reporter) but doesn't distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like result_table_catalog or preview_result_table.

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 it when concurrent_forces reports a missing table, column or series" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is exactly the context an agent needs. However, it names no alternative tool for the adjacent cases (e.g. catalog lookups when nothing is broken).

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