Measure the model

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the measured quantities, which is sufficient for a simple measurement tool, though it does not describe error behavior or response details.

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 description is two short, purposeful sentences: the first lists measured outputs and the second gives the use case. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 simple three-parameter, read-only tool, the description plus the fully documented schema is largely complete. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing this tool over overlapping siblings such as onshape_mass_properties.

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%, with doc, ws, and elem fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 description clearly states what the tool returns: body count, overall bounding box in inches, and total volume. It also gives the intended use case, checking dimensions before export, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping sibling tools such as onshape_mass_properties.

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?

"Use this to check a model matches its intended dimensions before exporting" provides clear invocation context. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a fully explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guideline.

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