Open a saved drawing analysis (offline)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that this performs no upload, consumes no daily credit, and has the side effect of registering the drawing so review_masking and mask_drawing can consume it. That registration side effect, not visible in annotations, is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, then constraints, then the parameter hint. The parenthetical about the Imnoo FileStore document and the pdf_path clause both earn their space as disambiguation.

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?

With no output schema and thin annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it covers the source of the JSON, offline behavior, the registration side effect, and the prerequisite for downstream tools. The return value/registered-id behavior is only lightly implied rather than stated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining why pdf_path matters across tools ('masking needs the original PDF, and custom terms search its text') rather than merely restating 'needed to write the masked PDF'. It adds little about drawing_id beyond the schema's stated default.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open a drawing analysis JSON saved earlier') and immediately names the downstream siblings it feeds (review_masking, mask_drawing) plus the producer (analyze_drawing with save_analysis_to). An agent can distinguish this from analyze_drawing without opening either schema.

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?

Clear about context: use this when the analysis JSON already exists, and it is 'fully offline — no upload, no daily credit', implicitly routing the agent away from re-running analyze_drawing. It also gives a concrete calling rule ('Pass pdf_path as well: masking needs the original PDF'). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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