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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions that private EngineSessions are not exposed through public MCP, which is a minor behavioral constraint, but it fails to disclose idempotency, side effects, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is insufficient for a validation tool.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence about private sessions is tangential and could be omitted or moved to a more appropriate section. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain prerequisites or validation outcomes, but the presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to describe return values. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0% for individual parameters. The description only mentions the two top-level input categories (designSummary and rawInput) without explaining their properties or constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, which is inadequate given the low coverage.

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 that the tool validates designs against specific rule categories (electrical, cooling, etc.). It specifies two distinct input types (design summary or raw input) and uses a precise verb-resource pairing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'design' and 'layout'.

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 that validation is performed on a design, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus creating or laying out designs. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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