recommend_running_clearance

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 the Kiln Pro entitlement requirement, which is real behavioral value, but it never states what the tool actually returns, whether it errors or returns an upsell when unsubscribed, or whether the 'would calculate' framing means the tool does nothing but advertise. That ambiguity is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 leads, but one of four sentences is a bare pricing URL, and the middle sentence adds hedged rather than actionable detail. Not bloated, but not every sentence earns its 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?

For an 8-parameter, gated tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: parameter meaning, return shape, and post-upgrade behavior. The user would have to discover invocation semantics by trial.

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?

Eight parameters at 50% schema coverage, and the description mentions none of them — not even the required 'mating' argument, nor how mode/material/nominal_mm/pressure_angle_deg affect the recommendation. The description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented half of the schema.

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 sentence gestures at the resource (clearance gap between two moving printed parts), but the phrasing is framed as a question ('What gap to MODEL') rather than a clear verb, and the second sentence describes what Kiln Pro 'would calculate' rather than what this tool does. An agent can infer this relates to running-fit clearance, but genuine sibling differentiation (vs. check_assembly_clearances, recommend_hole, compute_iso_fit) is absent.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the gating notice, and no alternatives named among the many clearance/fit-related siblings. The agent is left to guess whether this is the right clearance tool.

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