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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuine behavioral value by explaining it is advisory in nature and returns the recommended workflow plus required next steps. It stops short of describing output format or depth, so not 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then triggers, then exclusions – every sentence carries routing information. The closing exclusion list is slightly dense, but it is functional rather than filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns (a recommended workflow and next steps), and what it does not cover. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 single parameter is an enum, so the schema already does the work (baseline 3). The description goes further by expanding each enum value into natural-language examples (single photo, multi-angle photos, GLB/GLTF model, Sketchfab model, AI multi-view images), clarifying what each input type means.

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 (choose the appropriate 3D2HOLO workflow) scoped to turning existing visual content into a lenticular 3D photo. It explicitly excludes adjacent concerns (product info, print params, LPI calibration, price quotes), which maps onto the sibling tools, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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?

Gives explicit triggers (user has a specific source type and is unsure how to proceed), enumerates the qualifying source types matching the enum, states sequencing ('use it before giving workflow instructions'), and lists concrete exclusions. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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