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

Annotations already declare it a safe, idempotent, closed-world read; the description adds real value beyond that by naming the rule sources (HD 603/620, NEC Tables 300.7(A)/(A), IS 1255), stating the answer carries a source and 'seen' level, and disclosing the null-with-reason fallback. It does not state the unit of the returned depth, which is a notable omission for an engineering answer.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its varying dimensions; every clause (sources, null behavior, determinism) carries information. It is a single very dense sentence with stacked parentheticals, which costs some readability but 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?

Covers the four-parameter shape, the enum axes, the rule provenance, the failure mode, and the absence of LLM nondeterminism; with no output schema, describing the payload (depth with source and seen level) is exactly what is needed. Only the returned unit is left implicit.

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% and three parameters have enums with their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same axes (location, direct/raceway) without adding syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what is already documented.

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 precise resource (minimum burial cover of a power cable), the dimensions it varies along (country, voltage, location/method) and the data provenance. No sibling tool in the list touches burial depth, so the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (ask for burial depth when you need it), and the 'free, deterministic, no LLM' note hints at when to prefer it over reasoning. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisite statements, and no alternatives named.

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