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 meaningful behavior beyond that: the input-snapping rule (requested size is not honored verbatim), the origin reference (1102 × 718 example), the Shaper export framing, and an unofficial-tool disclaimer. It does not discuss limits on the SVG payload or failure modes.

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?

Purpose and snapping rule are front-loaded, and the long 'Returns ...' enumeration is justified because no output schema exists. The result is a dense single paragraph with a few long clause chains, so it is efficient but not maximally scannable.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values and it does so thoroughly (snapped size, hole count, positions, depths, file name, SVG/picture/tool links). Nothing an agent needs to call or relay results is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by spelling out the snapping formula (46 + 96 × n mm, n = 1–20) and the actual hole geometry that width/depth imply, which the terse schema descriptions do not convey.

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+resource combination ('MFT/3 dog-hole pattern for a table top of any size') with concrete geometric detail. It is immediately distinguishable from the single sibling french_cleat_plan without opening either schema.

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 establishes clear context (generating a table-top pattern of any size, with the snapping range documented) and even gives post-call presentation guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or contrasting against the sibling tool, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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