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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds content-level transparency by naming what comes back (sign-up links plus the four-step workflow) and reconfirms no state change with 'Creates nothing'.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned content, then the usage cue. Nothing is padded, and the closing clause is a compact negative guarantee.

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 return content, and it does (links + four steps). It could go slightly further on whether the answer is prose, structured steps, or localized text, but for a read-only onboarding helper it is essentially complete.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and the schema documents it fully (enum de/en with default 'de') at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra guidance on language selection, 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 concrete payload: 'Returns the links to open an account or sign in and the four steps from floor plan to share page.' That is far more specific than the title's 'How to start a project', and 'Creates nothing' implicitly separates it from vedutum_create_project, though no sibling is named.

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 wants to try it with their own plan' gives a trigger condition, but it is loose and does not contrast with close alternatives such as vedutum_example_project (trying without own data) or vedutum_create_project (actually starting).

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