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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it returns a 0-100 score, verdict and gaps, and that it does not modify the scene; it does not describe output structure beyond that.

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?

Three compact sentences with the call condition front-loaded, followed by return behavior and phase values. It is appropriately sized, with minor repetition of phase information already present in the schema.

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?

Given a read-only assessment tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns and that the scene is not modified. The nested scene format is covered by the schema, leaving only detailed output structure as a minor gap.

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. The description repeats the phase values and default but adds no further meaning about the nested scene object or phase semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource: establish a consolidated BIM assessment of a CAD scene, covering LOD/LOI, completeness, compliance, naming, disciplines and quantities. This distinguishes it from narrower CAO/BIM siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Opens with an explicit call condition: use it when a consolidated BIM assessment is needed for a given phase. It gives the phase values and default, but does not say when to prefer narrower sibling tools such as cao_bim_lod or cao_bim_disciplines.

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