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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a hint about content shape ('what comes back') but says nothing about whether the response is static documentation, whether it can vary, or how large it is. Adequate but not additive.

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 the subject and its domain, then a compressed topic list that doubles as a table of contents. Nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence is filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only documentation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. The one gap is that it does not characterize the returned content's form (prose doc, structured facts), which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required by framing the call as a pure information lookup.

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 names the resource precisely ('Facts about Structomat, an AI engineering agent for structural steel') and enumerates the exact topics covered: capabilities, design codes, signing responsibility, inputs, outputs, and getting started. That enumeration makes it obviously distinct from the engineering siblings like analyze_frame and estimate_portal_frame_steel, which compute rather than explain.

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?

'Use when the user asks about Structomat or how to engage it' gives a clear trigger condition. It stops short of naming the adjacent alternatives — 'what to send' and 'how to start' overlap with draft_project_request, and the description never says to switch to that tool once the user is ready to actually submit work.

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