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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is the classification of possible results (direct compatibility, adapter needs, verification boundaries, unsafe paths), which usefully signals that this is a diagnostic classifier rather than a boolean check. However, 'verification boundaries' is undefined jargon and no determinism, limitations, or failure behavior is disclosed.

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 names the inputs first and the outcome categories after, with no filler. Slightly dense with terms like 'verification boundaries' that are never unpacked, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 three-parameter, all-required, fully documented read-only screen with no output schema, the description covers the action and the shape of the result categories an agent should expect. Missing only explicit guidance on how its verdict categories relate to the sibling sizing/guide tools.

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 both enums are documented (connector families, destinations, allowed distances), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the three inputs in prose without adding format, constraint, or interaction semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Screen') and the exact resource set (generator outlet, destination, cord distance) plus the outcome it produces (compatibility, adapter needs, unsafe paths). That clearly separates it from calculate_generator_cord_size and search_generator_guides, though it never names those siblings as alternatives.

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: an agent infers this is the pre-purchase/pre-connection screening step, and the mention of 'adapter needs' and 'unsafe paths' suggests when it matters. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to calculate_generator_cord_size for sizing versus this tool for compatibility.

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