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

Annotations are all false and provide no real safety or behavior context, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It only says 'Register,' without explaining persistence effects, uniqueness expectations, validation requirements, or any other runtime behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action, the accepted grinder types, and the key settings aspect in minimal words.

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 13-parameter registration tool with an output schema, the description is quite thin. It does not explain registration prerequisites, the relationship to grinder_math or set_grinder_position, or when compound settings/components_spec become relevant.

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 77%, and the description adds only the terms 'manual or electric' and 'dial settings scheme,' which loosely map to motor_type and setting_scheme. It does not add meaning for required but undocumented parameters like burr_type or direction_convention.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('grinder'), and adds a meaningful qualifier: 'manual or electric ... dial settings scheme.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_grinders and set_grinder_position.

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 implies its use when adding a new grinder to the system, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_grinders, set_grinder_position, or grinder_math. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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