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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It lists supported file formats but does not clarify whether the tool downloads files, returns a list of links, or has any side effects or authorization requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, leaving a transparency gap.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core purpose and file types. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more explicit about the action (e.g., 'download').

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and supported file types. The schema covers the parameter, so the description is sufficient for basic invocation, though it could mention whether output is a list or download.

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?

The schema provides full coverage for the sole parameter 'model' with a description of allowed values and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing BIM/CAD files (DWG, OBJ, RFA, 3DS) for architects and designers, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_furniture or get_slides. It lacks an explicit verb like 'download' but the noun phrase is unambiguous.

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 description includes a usage context ('Для интеграции бассейна в проект' – for pool integration), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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