recommend_hole

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuinely important behavior: the answer is tier-gated, with Free returning warnings only and Pro/Business/Enterprise adding sizing, per-machine fit, QC plans and supplier vetting. That is useful output-shape information, but permissions, determinism, units, and what happens with all-default (0.0) inputs are all undisclosed, and the rest of the text is pricing promotion.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and clear, but roughly two-thirds of the body is a four-tier upsell with a tracking URL. The tier information earns partial credit as behavioral disclosure; the pricing copy and link do not.

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 12-parameter engineering tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description says nothing about input dependencies, units, whether any parameter is effectively required (all default to empty or 0.0), or the shape of the result. The only context provided is commercial, leaving an agent under-equipped 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?

All 12 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but those descriptions are only 'Default: X' strings, and the tool description adds nothing about what material, fit, print_axis, hole_purpose, blind_or_through, or the mm measurements actually control or which combinations matter. The description never compensates for the shallow schema text.

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 opening sentence states a concrete verb+resource: recommend a drilled hole size so a given object fits through. It is readable and specific, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as compute_iso_fit, recommend_running_clearance, or design_hole_for_product, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite many overlapping hole/fit tools in the sibling list. The only usage-adjacent signal is the implicit tier gate (free returns warnings, Pro returns sizing), which tells an agent what it may get back but not when to call this over a sibling.

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