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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds two useful bits beyond them: 'Deterministic, no LLM' and that each symbol's source is reported. It doesn't address invalid/unrecognized codes or what happens on parse failure, leaving a gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates coverage and return layers efficiently. Slightly overloaded with standard names, but nothing wasted.

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?

No output schema, so the description carries return-value burden; it lists the layers briefly which is adequate. But it omits failure handling and the lang parameter's effect on output, leaving a 2-param tool with a meaningful gap.

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 only 50%; the code param is well documented in-schema, but lang has only an enum (en/tr) and no description anywhere. The description mentions nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented lang parameter.

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 (decode) and resource (cable type designation), enumerates the standards covered, and names the layers returned. An agent can distinguish this from design_cable (which presumably generates rather than parses) without opening the 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 implicit contrast with design_cable is inferable from 'decode' vs 'design', but the description never explicitly states when to use this versus the sibling or what to do with ambiguous input. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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