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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only; writes no file' is largely reinforcement rather than new information. What the description does add is substantive: the tool reads both model geometry tables and CIVIL NX-computed section properties, reports area differences against CIVIL NX, and surfaces excluded weightless members — behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 scope is front-loaded in the first clause and the usage routing comes last, so an agent gets the point immediately. The middle sentence is a very long comma-delimited inventory of reported items that is dense but each item earns its place as return-value disclosure.

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, so the description carries the full burden of describing return content — and it does so exhaustively (girder lines, foundations, bearings, alignment fit, per-section area deltas, volumes per material). With readOnly/openWorld annotations covering safety and all six parameters defaulted, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes several of them indirectly (tendons, 'the joined deck', 'weightless members left out', 'every section in use'), but adds no syntax, units, or default behavior beyond what the schema states. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-plus-resource ('Reads the open model's geometry tables and CIVIL NX's computed section properties') and enumerates exactly what it reports: girder lines, piers/pylons, abutments, bearings, deck alignment and line/arc fit, joined deck, sections with outline rebuild and area deltas, tendons, weightless members, volumes. It is unmistakably the diagnostic/preview counterpart of model_to_ifc and cannot be confused with any sibling.

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 states the trigger conditions directly: 'Use it before model_to_ifc / model_to_dxf, or to sanity-check a model.' That names the alternatives and the ordering, and the 'Read-only; writes no file' clause makes clear why one would pick this tool over the exporters.

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