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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that the project is fictional and the response is a fixed demo packet with captions — which tells the agent this is illustrative content, not live client data. It does not state whether the response is static or regenerated, but the annotations carry the rest.

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 resource identity, then the payload, then the trigger. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so concretely (share page, demo, five captioned images). It stops short of describing response shape or size, which leaves a small gap for an agent deciding how to consume the result.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, including the enum values and the 'de' default. The description says nothing about the language parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (returns VEDUTUM's example project „Haus Lindenweg“) and enumerates the concrete payload: share page, step-by-step demo, five captioned pictures. An agent can distinguish this from data-bearing siblings like vedutum_get_project or vedutum_list_projects purely from the description.

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 an explicit trigger condition — 'Use when someone wants to see what the result looks like.' That is a clear use case, but it names no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer whether to prefer vedutum_get_started or vedutum_share_link.

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