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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by framing the tool as a read/inspect step that yields stable node ids needed for a later mutation, which is workflow context the annotations do not provide. No auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode detail is offered.

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 return payload and followed by the usage rule. The content enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the outline contains.

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 an output schema covering the return shape, full schema coverage for parameters, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: why and when to call it (node-id discovery before apply_patch). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters (document, lang) are already fully documented in the schema, including accepted formats and language values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 (return a text outline) and resource (electrical diagram), and enumerates the exact contents: installation, panel tree with stable ids, ratings, cables, links, interlocks, boards, findings. This distinguishes it from siblings like render, bom, or validate that operate on the same document.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow and the sibling: 'find the node ids before apply_patch', which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to prefer render or viewer_link instead), so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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