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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent but non-destructive operation. The description adds the crucial cost disclosure ('Uses one House AI design credit') and the return artifact ('photorealistic image'), which the annotations do not cover. Credit consumption is the standout value-add.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the purpose, then the return value and cost. No filler or repetition of schema fields verbatim.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested photo object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and cost. The photo-vs-photo_url-vs-photo_upload_id selection logic is left entirely to schema descriptions, which is acceptable given full coverage but is the one gap.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only gestures at the field set (siding, paint, trim, roof color, front door) without adding syntax or guidance beyond the schema's examples.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('AI exterior design and landscaping'), enumerates the surfaces it touches (siding, paint, trim, roof color, front door, yard, patio, garden), and implicitly distinguishes itself from redesign_room by scoping to the outside. An agent can tell what it produces (a photorealistic image) without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use ('from a photo', exterior vs yard) and the schema's focus enum reinforces the two modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as redesign_room or when to prefer one, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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