recommend_hardware_pocket

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

With no annotations, the description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the answer is tier-gated, and the free tier returns warnings only while paid tiers return sizing and fit. What it never discloses is whether the call mutates anything, what permissions are needed, or how the 22 inputs affect the answer.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and fine, but roughly half the text is a promotional tier ladder plus an upgrade URL, which spends space on sales copy instead of on the 22 undocumented parameters.

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?

A 22-parameter engineering tool with no annotations and no output schema needs a far richer description. The agent learns neither the meaning of the measurement and load inputs, nor what the graded result contains, nor how warnings differ from sizing output in practice.

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 only 32% across 22 parameters, so the description must carry the explanation — and it contributes nothing. Opaque names like cad_size_mm, measured_hole_shrink_mm, load_n, torque_nm, and application_class go entirely unexplained; only 'hardware' is loosely implied by the prose.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource: size the pocket for a piece of hardware in a 3D-printed part. The trailing 'and grade one drawn' is ambiguous (grade a drawn pocket? a drawing?) and nothing distinguishes it from close siblings like recommend_hole, design_hole_for_product, or plan_hardware_insertion, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus recommend_hole, recommend_magnet_for_product, or plan_hardware_insertion, and no prerequisites. The only routing information is commercial (which tier unlocks which answer), not functional.

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