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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspects' implies a read-only operation and it usefully discloses what each mode returns (e.g., volume, bounds, centroid, closed/curve error). However it says nothing about permissions, contract of 'curve error', or any error/edge behavior beyond the field names.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then packs the three modes and their outputs efficiently. Dense but every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partly compensates by listing per-mode return fields, but it omits pagination behavior (left to the schema's from/limit) and any sibling routing. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description loosely maps action values to their outputs but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Inspects) and resource (3D solids), and enumerates the three modes (list, measure, check) with their returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the export/create/stats siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 three action values imply when each mode applies (enumerate vs. quantify vs. validate), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many cad_* siblings. Usage must be inferred.

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