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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real domain behavior: geometry is exact with no printing tolerance, and process allowance applies only to press/slide/run/socket fits while designed/clamp stay as drawn. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown slug or the read-only nature, but the fit-handling semantics are genuinely informative.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned content before the caveat about process allowance. Every clause earns its place; slightly dense enumerations but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by listing what each fit record contains (size, mate, fit class, applicable files). A single-param read tool is adequately covered, though it says nothing about behavior for missing objects or the result's ordering/shape.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'object' (slug format). The description adds no extra syntax or alias guidance beyond what the schema already says; 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+resource ('Mating features for one object') and enumerates the returned content — holes, pins, pockets, sockets, sizes, mate counterpart, fit class. That is clearly distinguishable from get_geometry or find_geometry, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. Usage is only implied by the resource ('one object') and by the downstream instruction on applying process allowance, which is about consuming the results rather than selecting this tool.

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