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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: version-scoped answers, that type names (e.g. Inputs.IFC.SpaceInfoDto) are resolvable field by field, and that unknown paths fail with nearest-path suggestions rather than guessing.

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 core purpose and the example are front-loaded, and every sentence carries content (return fields, type resolution, version scope, error behavior). It is dense with run-on sentences and could be tightened, but there is little outright waste.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to enumerate what a result contains: signature, per-parameter type/default/range, return type, docs, examples, and execution location. Combined with version and not-found behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the lack of any pointer to searching for paths keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the version default. The description echoes the path example and version semantics without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (describe) and resource (one API member by dotted path), with a concrete example path. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_api and fetch, which the agent would use to discover or retrieve rather than inspect a contract.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the requirement of an exact dotted path, and it helpfully notes that unknown paths return nearest matches. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings such as search_api, fetch, or get_examples, leaving the routing to inference.

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