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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it costs 500 credits and returns editable SVG, which helps the agent weigh call cost and expected output.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, names the model, and appends cost and output in a tight clause. Nothing is wasted.

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, the description usefully states the return is an editable SVG. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, an agent has what it needs to call it, though the prerequisite link to plan_illustrations could be made more explicit.

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 all three parameters (prompt, artboard, illustration) are already well explained. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Draw a planned illustration'), names the model ('SVG Lab's vector model'), and specifies the output ('editable SVG from a text brief'). It doesn't explicitly name a competing sibling like draw_svg or plan_illustrations, but 'planned illustration' and 'the faster route' hint at the workflow distinction.

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?

Implies a prerequisite workflow ('planned illustration') and that this is one option ('the faster route'), but never states when to use it versus plan_illustrations or draw_svg. The guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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