Get DIN 5008 geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It names the specific geometry elements returned, which gives the agent a reasonable idea of the output scope. However, it doesn't disclose return units nuance (assumes mm is noted in description itself), format, or whether it's language-dependent. For a read-only query tool, this is acceptable.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the millimetre geometry of the layout') and then enumerates specifics. No wasted words, appropriately sized for a parameterless query tool.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params, no output schema), so the description's scope is adequate. However, no output schema exists, so the description is the only source of output information. It lists the geometry components well but could note that 'mm' is the unit (it does mention millimetre), and could mention if values are required for constructing letters with create_letter. Slightly thin for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, meaning there's no schema burden to compensate for. The description meaningfully explains what the returned geometry contains, which is valuable since the agent cannot otherwise predict the output. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Describes a specific verb+resource (get geometry of DIN 5008 layout) and enumerates the specific geometry elements: address field, remark zone, writing margins, subject position, fold and punch marks. Clear enough to distinguish from siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like preview_letter.

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?

No guidance on when to call this tool vs alternatives. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. While siblings like preview_letter or create_letter clearly differ, the description doesn't explicitly say when to use this instead.

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