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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only gives a static noun phrase; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, whether any side effects occur, or if authentication/permissions are required.

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 only one short sentence, but it is under-specified and not an actual verb-driven definition. It is a noun fragment, not an appropriately sized functional description. It fails to earn its place by not conveying actionable information.

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?

Given the tool's single parameter and lack of output schema or annotations, the description should at least state what the tool returns and any prerequisites. It does neither, leaving the tool's behavior and context largely undefined.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'dimension' is a scaffold member, which adds some meaning, but it does not explain the expected format, allowed values, or the maxLength constraint from the schema. The parameter remains underspecified.

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 what the tool conceptually represents: 'axes that sit on a given scaffold member (dimension).' It implies a lookup/get operation for a dimension, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'grid_axis' only by domain context, not by clear differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'grid_axis'. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool.

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