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

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world, but the description adds meaningful process detail: it reads plate forces, selects the governing position and case, re-runs the plugin, and returns every route, face, utilisation and intermediate quantity. The final 'Read-only' line is redundant, but overall it adds value beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavior, followed by a compact input note. No filler or repetition beyond the brief read-only tag.

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 17-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear behavioral and return-content summary and defers input details to slab_assess and the schema. It could say more about output structure, but is largely complete.

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?

With 94% schema description coverage, the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description only adds that inputs match slab_assess plus element and that position/case default to governing, which is helpful but minimal.

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 ('explain') and resource ('one element's utilisation'), and clarifies that it re-runs the element through explain_location. It also distinguishes itself from slab_assess by noting it takes the same inputs plus element, making its narrower scope clear.

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 implies use when you need the working behind a single element's utilisation rather than a full assessment, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over slab_assess or other siblings, nor when not to use it.

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