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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a stateful two-call process, an intermediate id, wall detection and numbering, and second-stage wall output with from, to, and thickness values. It does not explain what state is retained, why readOnlyHint is false, or failure and retry behavior, but nothing stated conflicts with the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded, and devotes each sentence to useful workflow information. However, its telegrammatic grammar and unformatted inline invocations make the two operating modes harder to scan; a short numbered sequence would be clearer without adding much length.

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?

It covers the main lifecycle and downstream integration, which is especially useful because there is no output schema, while the schema documents the nested calibration object. Nevertheless, the return structures are only sketched, and id lifetime, reuse, units, and error behavior remain unexplained for this comparatively complex stateful tool.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics that individual field descriptions do not provide: an initial URL-driven call, a follow-up combining id with known, and reuse of that id in build. It appropriately relies on the schema for the detailed known.length, walls, from, and to forms.

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 identifies a concrete operation: turning an HTTPS floor-plan image into numbered walls on a grid, then producing calibrated wall geometry for the sibling build tool. Fragmented wording such as "its walls found" and "a wall step's from, to and thick" makes the exact results less immediately clear than a top-scoring definition.

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 gives an actionable sequence: start with the picture, call again with the id and a known length, then supply blueprint {id} to build, with get_guide available for the blueprint topic. It does not explain when this tool is unnecessary or what to do with an already-calibrated plan, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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