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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: marks follow the wire_marking rules of a view, and the view defaults to the first one that declares them. It also notes columns are stable, hinting at output stability. This is useful context on defaults and derivation rules.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then the mode options, with no filler sentences. The awkward line breaks and inline French glosses cost a little readability but do not bloat the text.

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 3-param, read-only export tool with an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the derivation rules and default-selector behavior an agent needs. Return-value format need not be explained given the output schema. Nothing critical 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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including the what enum values and the view default. The description largely restates the what semantics without adding format or syntax detail (e.g., how the view id is obtained). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: exports an installation's wiring as rows with stable column names, and enumerates the three output kinds (markers, wires, cables). The mode enumeration clearly delineates what the tool produces. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as bom or render, which also derive outputs from a 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?

The what values ('markers' for label printers, 'wires', 'cables') imply which use case each selects, giving implied rather than explicit guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings like bom or list_types, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves selection largely to inference.

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