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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains that verification is performed against the original photo per window and door, and that the verification mark is withheld if anything moved. It does not address what happens when the job is unfinished, whether results are immutable, or any auth/size considerations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and effect, then usage routing, then scope boundary — good ordering. The third sentence partially restates the verification mechanism ('window by window and door by door' repeats the earlier clause), which costs a little density but also serves as scope framing.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by outlining what the evidence contains (structural checks run against the original photo, which windows/doors were measured, what each check found). Missing only edge-case behavior, such as what is returned for a job that has not finished verification.

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; the description adds that the jobId must reference a *finished* staging job, which narrows the acceptable values beyond the schema's 'jobId returned by stage_room'. Only a single parameter, so no further semantic load is needed.

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 and resource: fetching RELTOLock™ verification evidence (structural checks and outcomes) for a finished RELTO staging job. It is clearly distinguished from get_staging_result ('the summary ... is not enough') and from generic photo verification ('does not scan or verify photos staged by other tools').

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition (when the summary from get_staging_result is not enough) and a concrete example use case (showing which windows and doors were measured and what each check found). It also names an exclusion — photos staged by other tools are not covered.

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