Check a Feature Against Process Limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the tri-state result, that some limits are thickness-ratio based so thickness may be required, and that a passing result does not imply manufacturability or cost. It does not say whether the call is purely read-only or where the limit data comes from, but the compute-and-report framing makes the safety profile clear.

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 action is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by the one non-obvious mechanic (thickness ratios), the scope caveat, and the pairing hint. Four sentences, all doing work; the sheet-metal example is slightly illustrative-heavy but justifies itself by explaining the thickness parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the main behavioral caveats. However, with zero enums and free-text 'process'/'feature' strings, an agent has no guidance on valid values or where to obtain them (e.g., the process_list sibling) — a meaningful gap for actually invoking the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the conditional dependency for 'thickness' with a concrete illustration (1 mm hole fine in thin sheet, difficult in thick plate), but adds nothing about what valid values 'process' and 'feature' accept — neither schema nor description enumerates them.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Compare one measured feature against a manufacturing process's limits') and even names the three outcome states (within, marginal, beyond), so the operation is unambiguous. It never names its closest sibling, process_limits, so the boundary between checking one measurement and looking up a process's limits is left for the agent to infer.

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 clear context for use ('Pair this with a measured wall or hole size from a CAD server to answer whether a part suits a process') and states what the tool is not (no shop-capability promise, no cost estimate). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or saying when not to call it at all.

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