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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The value added is the disclosure of scope — it touches levels, groups, load cases, PATCH_ cases and presets — but nothing is said about the shape or size of the response, despite there being no output schema.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and terminated by a short 'Read-only' flag — no filler. It is somewhat run-on given the list of inspected artefacts, but each clause earns its place by naming a distinct part of the inspection.

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 one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating what the call surfaces. The remaining gap is that it does not say how 'active' narrows the result or what the returned structure looks like, which matters somewhat for a survey tool.

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% and the single optional 'active' filter is documented in the schema itself ({groups, useZ, zMin, zMax}); the description never mentions it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden and the description adds no filtering semantics.

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?

Specific verb (reads) plus a precise scope: it enumerates exactly what state is inspected — deck type (plates vs grillage), levels and groups, dispersible point loads per load case, existing PATCH_ cases, and presets with outstanding requirements. That enumeration makes it clearly distinguishable from the write-side siblings point_to_patch_apply, point_to_patch_dispersal, and point_to_patch_undo without needing to open their schemas.

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?

'Read-only' and the framing as what the Convertor 'sees' imply this is the survey step to call before applying or dispersing, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when/when-not statement. An agent can infer the sequencing, but it is inference rather than guidance.

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