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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that — that .lsp files are built and sent to AutoCAD inside Wai, and that the call yields authoritative numbers rather than estimates — but it never says whether this call itself returns numbers, routine metadata, or code references.

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 compact sentences: the resource inventory comes first, followed by a short behavioral instruction. The routine list is long but informative rather than filler; only minor slack from the trailing ellipsis.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what the response contains and how category narrows it. It gestures at returned values ('the returned numbers') without defining them and leaves the parameter's domain unspecified, so an agent could call it but not predict or use the result confidently.

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 single optional 'category' parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry the meaning and does not: it never mentions filtering, valid category values, or the effect of omitting it. The parenthetical list of drawing types plausibly hints at categories but the connection is never made explicit.

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 — a set of parametric AutoLISP routines for AutoCAD, with a long parenthetical of drawing types — but never states the action the call performs (list routines? fetch their parameters? return computed numbers?). An agent can infer it retrieves library entries, yet nothing distinguishes it from siblings like wai_calculators or wai_calculate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many wai_* siblings, and no precondition for calling it. The only directive — 'Answer with the returned numbers, not an estimate made before the call' — governs how to report results, not when this tool is the right choice.

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