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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context about the kind of setup data returned and the operator-level settings that have no dataset. It does not describe response structure or pagination, but that is less critical for a configuration-description tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is followed by specific content coverage and routing guidance. It is long but the length reflects the many configuration sections; most sentences earn their place, though the section list could be tightened.

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 read-only configuration-description tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the covered domains and alternatives, though it could say more about the shape or granularity of the returned summary.

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 coverage is 100%, so the section parameter is already fully documented in the input schema, including the valid section names and the FACTORY_FLOOR/SCHEDULING module requirement. The description only adds a brief note to pass 'section' to read one part, which is essentially redundant with the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Describe the manufacturer's setup', then enumerates the exact domains covered. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming query for row-level detail and lintConfiguration for setup problems.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives: use query(entity=...) for row-level detail and lintConfiguration for setup issues. It also explains the optional section parameter as a way to read one part.

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