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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description usefully adds that decoding is deterministic and not LLM-based, that each symbol has a cited source, and that output covers conductor, insulation, screen, armour, and sheath. It does not describe behavior for unknown or ambiguous codes.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. The coding-system list and output-layer list are dense but relevant, and 'Deterministic, no LLM' earns its place as useful behavioral context.

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, but the description compensates by outlining the decoded layer structure and source provenance for each symbol. It leaves minor gaps around error handling for unrecognized designations and how the lang parameter affects returned text.

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%, and the schema already documents the code parameter with examples and the lang enum/default. The description adds no parameter-specific details such as accepted formatting, normalization, or how lang changes output, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, 'Decode', and resource, 'cable type designation', then enumerates supported coding systems and the output layers. This makes clear it is an interpretation tool rather than a validation or design tool such as check_cable or design_cable.

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 intended use is implied: interpret a printed or listed cable designation into its construction layers. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus check_cable, find_equivalents, or other siblings, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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