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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'does not spend a wish' clarification, reinforcing the non-destructive nature, and notes the pricing nuance ('free on beispiel-wohnzimmer'). It also implies the response shape via the 'ok true with empty issues list' condition. No contradiction; minor gaps like error handling exist but are not critical for a read-only check.

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 sentences, each purposeful: the first lists what the tool checks, the second states exclusions and usage timing, the third covers prerequisites and cost. The critical information is front-loaded, and there is no 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 read-only check with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the checks performed, the non-mutating behavior, usage context, and even hints at the response structure via the 'ok true' condition. It could mention error scenarios or the exact return format, but the core information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 schema already explains each parameter in detail (key token format, project id source, variant default). The description only restates the key requirement and free condition, adding no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 states a specific verb ('re-checks') and resource ('the saved layout'), enumerates the exact checks performed (pieces sticking out, overlaps, blocked areas including door swings, 0.9 m path), and explicitly excludes actions (does not place, move or spend a wish). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like move_furniture, place_furniture, and open_plan.

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?

It explicitly states when to call it ('after move_furniture or when issues are unclear') and gives a conditional for another tool ('ok true with an empty issues list is the condition for open_plan'). It also mentions the key requirement context. This provides clear routing guidance relative to alternatives.

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