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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by clarifying that Roomproof does not render photos and that the key is required only on user-created projects. This extra context helps the agent set correct expectations and avoid failed calls.

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 no filler, front-loading the primary purpose, then immediately covering the photo-rendering limitation and the authentication requirement. Every sentence contributes distinct information needed for correct invocation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return values and the key condition. It could further explain what image_positions contains or what 'drawn to scale' means for the output, but the core information needed to select and call the tool 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for all three parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic context for the key parameter by explaining when it is required and that it differs from the project id, which goes beyond the schema's raw 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 clearly states the tool returns a saved plan as a scaled image plus image_prompt and image_positions, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like open_plan, but the output-focused phrasing makes the core purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving a saved plan image and gives actionable guidance about copying image_prompt for photo generationributed. It also notes the key requirement for user-created projects. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as open_plan or check_plan.

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