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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses asynchronous behavior ('returns immediately with a jobId and status queued'), expected latency ('about a minute'), and what RELTOLock does to its own outputs, including that the verification mark is withheld if anything moved. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a long-running job tool.

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?

Opens with the action and scope, then async/verification behavior, then the follow-up step — well front-loaded with no filler. The RELTOLock verification behaviour is described twice in slightly different words, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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, so the description supplies the return contract itself (jobId and 'queued' status), the latency expectation, and the follow-up tool call plus what that call returns. That is complete for a 4-parameter async job-creation tool.

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% (image formats, style default, roomType default, idempotencyKey purpose), so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only the high-level constraint of 'one empty room photo' and no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a RELTO staging job for one empty room photo') and bounds the input scope to a single empty room photo. It also distinguishes itself from non-sibling tools by noting it 'does not scan or verify photos staged by other tools', so the agent can tell what this tool is and is not.

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?

Gives clear usage context: one empty room photo in, then 'call get_staging_result with the jobId' to collect output, and explicitly excludes photos staged by other tools. It stops short of naming get_verification or spelling out when-not conditions, but the primary routing instruction is explicit.

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