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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by describing the payload contents, though it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown slug or any limits.

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, zero waste: the payload summary is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete — it even compensates for the missing output schema by listing returned fields. Only the behavior on a missing/invalid slug is left unstated.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is fully documented, so baseline would be 3. The description adds the specific acquisition path (find_examples with type "connection"), which tells the agent where a valid slug comes from without opening the sibling tool.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Details of one connection from the Structomat steel connection library', then enumerates what is returned (members, plates, bolts, welds, design code, utilisation). An agent can immediately distinguish this single-record lookup from the broader sibling tools such as analyze_frame or find_examples.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to find_examples with type "connection" as the way to obtain the required slug, which is clear prerequisite guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming an alternative for retrieving connection data, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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