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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: 'no external calls', disclosure that omitted adjacency/circulation narrows the review and that unreviewed axes are explicitly reported, and that violations are never omitted from results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is dense but well-organized with line breaks and bold markers: purpose → usage routing → input semantics → behavioral guarantees. Each sentence carries distinctive content; it's longer than average only because the tool's domain and parameter interplay are genuinely complex. Not bloated.

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 6-parameter, domain-specific review tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what structured input to compute, which fields matter, what happens when optional fields are absent, how jurisdiction affects scope, and what the response guarantees. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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%, giving baseline 3. The description adds value beyond schema: clarifies only rooms are required, explains the consequences of omitting adjacency/circulation (which review dimsensions are skipped), and specifies the KR-서울 jurisdiction format and its fallback to national law. The description doesn't detail site_scope further, but schema already covers it, so the extra guidance lifts it above baseline.

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+resource: reviews floor plans/layouts from a building-code perspective, listing concrete violation domains (lighting, ventilation, egress, area). It explicitly names sibling alternatives (k_snippets, answer_why, emotional_palette, site_context) so the tool is distinguished without needing to open schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when user shares drawings or requests spatial-recomposition review') and when-not-to-use with named alternatives and conditions (specific clause cite → k_snippets; why-requirement → answer_why; atmosphere → emotional_palette; jurisdiction → call site_context first and pass its jurisdiction). This is fully actionable routing guidance.

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