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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds useful behavior: the report is generated from one run of the checks, xlsx is the default, result diagrams are captured from CIVIL NX, and download links are returned. The phrase 'writes the plugin's report' sits slightly awkwardly with readOnlyHint=true, but it appears to describe artifact creation rather than model mutation.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that covers the main action and output formats without filler. It is dense but appropriately sized for a report-generation tool, though the parenthetical about culvert_analyse_and_check interrupts the flow.

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 correctly notes that download links are returned. It covers the key behavior for the format and analyze parameters, while the large nested project parameter is left to the schema's detailed description.

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 67%, so the schema already documents the format enum and most of the project structure. The description adds the xlsx default and clarifies that 'both' comes from one run of the checks, but it does not explain the analyze flag's full effect or elaborate on the project merges beyond what the schema already says.

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 output: runs checks on the analysed culvert model and writes the plugin's report in xlsx, pdf, or both. It explicitly contrasts itself with culvert_analyse_and_check, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly says the checks run as in culvert_analyse_and_check and that re-analysis happens only when analyse: true. That establishes the main usage condition and names the sibling alternative, though it does not mention when to prefer other report-oriented siblings such as model_report_export.

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