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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not derivable from them: 'Nothing is uploaded.' It also frames the operation as a rules check against VEDUTUM's upload rules. It does not say what the verdict looks like (pass/fail plus reasons) or what the actual thresholds are, which keeps it below 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the use cases, then the reassurance about no upload. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With 7 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is checked, when to call it, and that nothing is uploaded. The notable gap is the return value: an agent cannot tell from the text whether it gets a boolean verdict, a list of failed rules, or remediation advice, which matters for a validation tool with no output schema.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description's list of check dimensions loosely maps to the boolean parameters (scan or vector, scale, title block), which gives mild conceptual framing but no syntax, defaults, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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 precise verb (checks) and resource (a floor plan file) and enumerates exactly what is validated: file type, size, pages, scan vs vector, scale, title block. This is clearly a pre-upload validation gate, distinguishable from content-reading siblings such as vedutum_read_floor_plan or rendering-related tools like vedutum_print_resolution.

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 two concrete triggering questions: which format to export from a named set of CAD tools (Archicad, Revit, AutoCAD, Vectorworks), and whether a scan or photo of a plan is acceptable. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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