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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists package contents but does not describe the output format, how the 'model' and 'format' parameters affect the response, whether it returns files or text, or any limitations. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently lists the package components. While it lacks structure (e.g., no formatting or examples), it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the target audience, so it earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool bundles multiple asset types and has no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the return format, the difference between summary and detailed packages, or the behavior when model='all'. It also fails to explain how this relates to sibling tools that offer individual components, leaving the agent with unresolved questions.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover both parameters (model and format) with 100% coverage, so the schema already conveys their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as examples or default values, thus the schema carries the load and 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?

The description names a specific audience (architect/designer/engineer) and enumerates the package contents (pool specs, BIM/CAD files, installation requirements, excavation dimensions), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly state the action ('retrieve' or 'get') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_bim_files or get_pool_specs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools that provide individual components (e.g., get_bim_files, get_pool_specs). The intended use is only implied by the target audience, with no explicit when-to-use or alternatives.

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