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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return surface in detail, including that CAD sources come with their license and that Xem offers are either free STEP/STL URLs or a scan status with price. It never states permissions, rate limits, or that the call is side-effect free, but the 'Get' framing and read-only payload make the operation unambiguous.

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 front-loaded sentence led by the verb and the core resource, followed by parenthetical enumerations of what is returned. It is dense and list-heavy but no clause is filler; a slightly cleaner breakdown would reach 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return values, which it does thoroughly across four distinct payload categories. The remaining gap is behavioral rather than informational: nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior when the object is not found.

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 parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that a slug, a name, or an alias are all acceptable, whereas the schema only documents the slug form from find_geometry.

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 ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one object's dimension sheet') and enumerates the payload: dimensions in mm, mounting holes, notes, size table, plain-text sheet, public CAD sources with licenses, and Xem file offers. The singular 'one object's' implicitly separates it from the search-oriented find_geometry sibling.

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 only implied: the schema note 'Slug from find_geometry' suggests this follows a search, and the description says it accepts a slug, name or alias. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no sibling named as an alternative (e.g. get_free_files for free files only).

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