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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it is a job that takes minutes on the website, it can be refused when the open model's counts differ, it conditionally runs analysis, and it returns the verdict and governing locations. These details materially help the agent understand runtime and failure conditions.

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 dense but appropriately sized for a complex check-running tool, and it front-loads the prerequisite before listing the checks. Every sentence carries useful information, though the long check enumeration makes it less compact than an ideal 5.

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?

For a complex, nested-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the operation, duration, refusal condition, and high-level return. It leaves some ambiguity about whether the call blocks or returns a job identifier for later polling, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the analyse:false behavior but adds little to the detailed parameter schema, and it does not mention maxLocations semantics beyond the schema's own description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs the CIVIL NX analysis, reads basic-case results, and runs the plugin's checks on the culvert model. It clearly scopes the operation to Annex A2 combinations and vehicle positions, distinguishing it from build/preview/report siblings even without naming them.

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 clear usage context: it operates on the culvert model built from the same inputs and is refused if the open model's counts differ, and it explains the analyse:false option. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose this over culvert_preview, culvert_report, or job_status.

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