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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the expected outputs (BoM, enclosure, price, score) but does not state whether the operation modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is a useful but incomplete transparency.

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 description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key outputs. Every word contributes essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and lists the return outputs, which is important because no output schema exists. However, it leaves some ambiguity around terms like '全軸スコア' and the format of the returned data, but for a single-parameter tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 parameter 'prompt' is fully described in the schema with an example ('焚き火に声で参加できる音声デバイス'), providing high schema coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: designing a device from a textual use case and returning BoM, enclosure, price, and full-axis score. It uses a specific verb 'design' and names concrete outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on parts management, compliance, and manufacturing.

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?

The description implies usage for generating a new device from a user's expressed use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like eval_device or compliance_check. No direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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