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

Adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('0 credits'), a preview URL, and that output is declarative role=wire geometry rather than a generated mesh. However, it does not clarify whether the call mutates the map spec (mild tension with readOnlyHint=true) or what the tool returns. The readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive profile is already carried by 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?

Front-loads what the tool makes, then constraints, then the sibling pairing and cost/preview link — every sentence carries information. The telegraphic style ('+ sag + strands', '0 credits') is dense but readable and wastes little space.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, output nature, placement examples, workflow pairing, and cost. The remaining gap is that with no output schema it never says what a call returns or how wires are identified afterwards.

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?

With a single 'prompt' parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the argument. The description's span/sag/strand details describe the resulting geometry, not the prompt parameter, so no meaning is added about the input. Baseline 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?

States a specific resource (sagging overhead electrical cables for an FPS map) and even describes the geometry it produces (two-anchor spans in metres, sag, strands). It closes with 'Not a generated mesh — GfMap tessellates cylinders (role=wire)', which separates it from the mesh-generating siblings, though it never names the closest alternative (e.g. gripforge_flexible_chain).

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('Typical spans: spawn yard, catwalk, mid, A site') and an explicit pairing instruction ('Pair with gripforge_map_plan'), which tells the agent where this fits in the workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or what prerequisites the map must satisfy.

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