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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-mutating behavior ('Does not place, move or spend a wish'), the key requirement for projects, and the expected success condition. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' but implies it through the negation, which is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of side effects like caching or pricing beyond the key note.

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 three sentences with zero redundancy: it front-loads the purpose, then usage, then key requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical (what it does, when to use, condition for success, auth note).

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it checks, when to call it, the condition for success, and the key requirement. It also differentiates from siblings, so an agent has all information needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including the key's format and applicability. The description restates the key requirement but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Re-checks the saved layout only' and enumerates specific checks (pieces sticking out, overlaps, blocked areas, 0.9 m path). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'Does not place, move or spend a wish,' so an agent can tell it apart from move_furniture and place_furniture.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use: 'Call it after move_furniture or when issues are unclear.' It also defines the condition for a sibling tool: 'ok true with an empty issues list is the condition for open_plan,' and clarifies what it does not do, which prevents misuse.

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