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

Goes beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing pricing ($0.50 per calculation in USDC via x402), absence of a free allowance, per-item charging for up to 50 items, and that the output is a PDF with fields for recording results. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One dense paragraph front-loads the purpose but then packs in standards citations, an inline input schema, and payment terms. The inline 'input: {...}' largely repeats the schema and makes the description heavier than necessary.

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?

For a complex nested tool with no output schema, the description covers the output type (PDF with result fields), the input's test-row default, and important payment constraints. It leaves the roles of alternative top-level inputs (spec, design, sentence, items, lang) to the schema, which is fully described.

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 the schema already documents parameters like input, spec, design, sentence, items, and lang. The description adds a little context by repeating the input sub-fields and default behavior, but mostly duplicates the schema's input description rather than adding new semantics.

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 and artifact: generating a Pro commissioning sheet PDF for post-installation tests of a design, with test rows, voltage, duration, and source. It is clearly distinct from siblings like design_cable or check_cable, though the core purpose is buried behind standards references and inline input syntax.

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?

Implies usage by saying it is a separate paid call for a design's after-installation tests, and notes that tests default to every row. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over related siblings such as check_cable or design_cable, nor when not to use it.

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