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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real value beyond that by describing the return (what to buy, where to cut with blade kerf, size mistakes like 2x4 = 1.5x3.5, page link) and by stating it does not fetch store prices. It does not detail failure modes or cost of a bad call, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences carry actionable info (inputs to supply, outputs returned, division of labor). It is a bit conversational and long, but most sentences earn their place.

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 a rich 7-param schema at 86% coverage and no output schema, the description fills the key gap by explaining what divux returns (buy list, cut diagrams, page link) and what it does not do (pricing). Sufficient for correct invocation.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most fields. The description reinforces that pieces need real size in inches and drawing position, which maps to size and at, but adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 transformation: turns a designed project into exact numbers and a blueprint page, covering boards, pipe, tube, sheets and area/volume/count materials. It also distinguishes itself from the pricing siblings by explicitly saying it does not look up store prices.

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?

Clearly divides labor: the agent designs, chooses materials and estimates prices, while divux returns buy list, cut plan and error checks. It routes pricing intent to search_products and compare_prices. It does not spell out explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond pricing, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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