Open technical drawings next to a model

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description's disclosure that the tool 'builds a link' (i.e. returns a URL rather than data) is genuinely additive, as is the note that several URLs load as one federated scene. It omits caveats like link lifetime or whether opening requires an account, which keeps it at 4.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage triggers follow. The middle sentence becomes a long inventory of pane features (calibrate, dimensions, export formats) that a caller selecting the tool does not strictly need, costing some tightness.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: it produces a link, loads multiple models as a federated scene, and the browser must download the files. Missing details about the returned link's form or lifespan are minor.

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%, so both the lang enum values and the public-URL constraint on models are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behaviour beyond that, so the baseline 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 opens with a concrete verb+resource: it 'builds a link that opens IFC models with the drawings pane beside the 3D view'. That is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling open_in_3d_viewer, though it never names the alternatives explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit triggers — 'when the user wants a 2D plan, to check a drawing against the model, or to mark up a sheet' — which is clear usage context. It stops short of exclusions (e.g. when to use open_in_3d_viewer instead), so it is not a 5.

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