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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the answer is a point count with a breakdown, and which artifacts consume no points. The remaining gap is that nothing explains the magnitude/scale of the returned number or whether the estimate is deterministic across 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then pricing-relevant details in descending importance. It is dense (three quality tiers, pixel sizes, video duration in one sentence) but every clause carries cost-relevant information; only the parenthetical pixel approximations verge on clutter.

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 9 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and full annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: what is charged, what is free, and what the return looks like (points plus breakdown). An agent can call this correctly without further context.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns elevation by glossing the quality levels (hd ≈ 1,024 px, praesentation ≈ 2,048 px, druck ≈ 4,096 px) and the 8-second video length, which the schema does not restate. It doesn't describe `storeys` or `check_run` beyond the schema, but those are already well documented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Counts the points VEDUTUM needs for a job," then enumerates exactly which inputs are costed. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so an agent must infer the routing, but the scope is unmistakable.

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?

"Use when someone asks what a set of renderings or videos takes" gives a clear trigger, and the closing clause that the 3D model, share page and exports need none effectively carves out what this tool is NOT for. No explicit alternative tool is named, but the inclusion/exclusion boundary is stated.

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