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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the response is exhaustive ("every floor plan image", "all free download links") and enumerates the download formats (PDF plan set, DXF per level, IFC, GLB), and the word "free" implies some links may be gated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, then the enumerated payoff. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations or schema beyond what routing requires.

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 tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance of the input, and the scope of the payload. Minor gap: it says nothing about behavior when the slug is unknown or the plan has no free downloads.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is already documented as "The plan slug from search_house_plans." The description's reference to sourcing a plan from search_house_plans reinforces the same fact rather than adding new semantics such as format or validation behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (show/retrieve) plus a specific resource (one house plan) and it enumerates exactly what detail is returned: description, every floor plan image, and all free download links. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_house_plans by positioning this as the detail view of a result found there.

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?

"Use this to show one house plan from search_house_plans" makes the upstream prerequisite and the selecting scenario clear in a single clause. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., what to do if you only have a name, or not to call it in a loop for a list), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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