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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it also reports floor plan reading state "also while it runs", telling the agent that in-progress work is observable rather than an error. It does not mention error cases for unknown/inaccessible project ids.

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 a scannable enumeration of returned data, then the usage directive. The return-content list is long but each item is a distinct payload field, so it earns its space; a single comma-run sentence makes it slightly denser than ideal.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so field-group by field-group, plus sequencing guidance. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of behavior for a missing/foreign project id and no note on payload size, but an agent can call this correctly from what is given.

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%: project_id's origin (vedutum_list_projects) and the language enum with default "de" are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the loose scope hint "of the connected account" and no new format or default detail, so 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 one project of the connected account") and then enumerates the concrete contents: floor plan reading state, storeys, rooms with areas, windows/doors, roof, facade, solar modules, share link, image count, app link. This makes it trivially distinguishable from sibling reads like vedutum_list_projects or vedutum_read_floor_plan.

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 sequencing rule ("Use after vedutum_read_floor_plan to see the result") and a question-type trigger ("for questions about areas or rooms"). It lacks an explicit exclusion, e.g. when to prefer vedutum_list_projects for discovering ids or vedutum_check_floor_plan for status, 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.