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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that placements are not automatic; it does not say whether the tool is read-only or mutating, whether it creates a proposal, what permissions are needed, or what happens to budget/style inputs.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. Its terseness is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important gaps that other dimensions penalize.

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?

This is a five-parameter tool with a nested placements array, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain the return behavior, side effects, budget semantics, or most parameters, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 only 20%, and the description explains only home_design_placements. It says nothing about home_design_style, home_design_max_budget_ngn, home_design_placements_json, or the distinction between the array and JSON placement parameters.

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?

The description identifies this as a legacy alias of preview_home_design and states that placements must be supplied manually. However, it does not independently state what the tool does in verb+resource terms, so an agent must already understand preview_home_design to know the actual effect.

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?

Calling it a 'legacy tool name' hints that preview_home_design may be preferred, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus preview_home_design or apply_home_design. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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