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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is free, no payment is needed, and invalid input is rejected before any payment occurs. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but none are implied for a free schema-lookup operation.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The return contents are front-loaded, followed by the sequencing rule and the payment/validation caveat, with no wasted words.

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 that returns a schema bundle and has no output schema, the description fully specifies what comes back: price, input schema, example input, return info, and endpoint. It also covers the workflow position and payment model, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and the single id parameter is documented with examples directly from wafermap_resources. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: returns everything needed to call one Wafermap resource. It enumerates exactly what is returned (price, input JSON Schema, example input, return info, HTTP endpoint), making its purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly places the tool in the workflow: use after wafermap_resources and before wafermap_call so the input is valid. It also explains the consequence of skipping it (invalid input rejected before payment) and notes that the call is free, giving complete when/when-not guidance.

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