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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by presenting the tool as a non-mutating 'VISTA'. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: output is an SVG, views are same-scale, and the view is derived from the real despiece ('lo que ves es lo que se corta'), which sets fidelity expectations.

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 main content is front-loaded with the view type, format, and purpose, followed by usage guidance. The trailing parenthetical English keywords (e.g., 'preview furniture, orthographic views') partially duplicate the Spanish text and add minor clutter, so it is not perfectly concise.

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 complex tool with a large nested schema and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, exact output format, fidelity to the cut plan, parameter relationship to cotizar_mueble, and clear usage scenarios. Nothing essential for correct invocation or selection is missing.

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% and the schema already documents params, preset, and ajustes with Spanish descriptions. The description adds the useful semantic anchor that the tool accepts the same args as cotizar_mueble, plus optional measurement adjustments, which helps an agent reuse knowledge from the sibling tool.

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: 'Devuelve una VISTA del mueble (frente + lateral + planta, a la misma escala) como imagen SVG'. Clearly separates preview from quoting by saying it is for seeing the design before cotizar, and names the related sibling cotizar_mueble.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is given: use it when you have a furniture piece in mind to confirm shape/proportions, or after ajustar_mueble to review a change. It also positions the tool as complementary to cotizar_mueble by accepting the same arguments, making the alternative relationship clear.

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