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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses free/no-key access, accepted input types, the output contract, the blocked-state behavior, and the missing-dimension convention. It even warns against guessing dimensions. This gives the agent a reliable mental model of the tool's behavior.

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?

Every sentence contributes necessary information: access model, inputs, outputs, invocation timing, success/failure flow, and a safety rule. The description is compact and well-organized, with the core action stated early and 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete. It covers what to pass in, what to expect back, how to recognize a blocked result, how to retry, and what to do with successful output. Nothing essential 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?

The schema already describes the single `input` parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying supported link types (IKEA, any furniture shop), the paste-text fallback, and the retry semantics, which go beyond the schema's one-line parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it turns a product link or pasted product page text into concrete dimension fields (name, width_mm, depth_mm, height_mm, price, link). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like place_furniture, move_furniture, or show_catalog.

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 tells the agent when to call the tool ('as soon as the user gives a furniture link'), how to handle failure (if blocked, ask for pasted text and retry), and how the result should be used downstream ('pass ... into a custom piece in place_furniture'). The 'never guess millimeters' rule prevents a common incorrect behavior.

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