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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that there is no automatic layout, that only agent-supplied placements appear, and that the result feeds apply_home_design rather than mutating state. It does not explicitly say the preview is non-persistent or how the budget cap affects validation, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the core before/after distinction, then constraints, then outputs. No redundant restatement of the name.

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?

Covers the prerequisites, the key constraint (no auto layout), and the return values that route into apply_home_design. Missing only whether the preview has side effects and how home_design_max_budget_ngn interacts with validation, which matters for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the placements semantics (type, x, y, rot per piece, not auto-generated), but adds no detail about style, notification_message, budget cap, or the legacy JSON string parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 (before/after 3D preview of a home design) and immediately defines what each side means, so an agent can tell it apart from apply_home_design and propose_home_design without reading their schemas.

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 explicit prerequisites ("Call get_home_layout + get_furniture_catalog first") and names the downstream tool (apply_home_design). It stops short of stating when to choose propose_home_design instead, which is the one remaining ambiguity among siblings.

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