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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: what the tool returns ('recommended workflow steps and where to start') and firm scope boundaries. It does not discuss behavior for an unexpected or ambiguous input type, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and triggering condition, followed by a compact scope statement. The input-type list is long but each item maps to a distinct enum value, so 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only selector with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: input meaning, output shape in prose, and explicit scope exclusions. No gaps remain that would cause a bad 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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are self-descriptive, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by mapping each enum value to a user-facing situation (e.g. 'a GLB/GLTF 3D model' vs 'a Sketchfab model'), disambiguating choices the raw enum names alone might blur.

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 ('Recommend the right 3D2HOLO workflow') and enumerates the exact input types it accepts, which cleanly separates it from siblings like calculate_output_params and get_product_info. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition (user wants to convert existing visual content into a lenticular 3D photo and the source type is known) and lists exclusions ('does not provide product overviews, print-parameter math, calibration charts, or price estimates'), which implicitly routes the agent to the sibling tools for those needs.

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