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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by naming the data categories returned and indicating the tool is a rendering backend. It says nothing about response size, latency, or what happens when project_id is omitted, and there is no output schema.

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 efficient sentences with no redundancy, and the data inventory is front-loaded. The trailing sentence "Used by the view itself" is the weakest and is slightly vague, but it still occupies little space.

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?

For a read-only geometry feed without an output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the return shape or size and the consequence of omitting the optional project_id. Listing the categories helps, but expectations for the response are left largely implicit.

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%, and both parameters (language and project_id) are documented in the schema, including the enum and the reference to vedutum_list_projects. The description adds no parameter guidance, so the 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?

It uses a specific verb ("Returns") with a well-defined resource ("plan geometry") and enumerates the payload categories: walls, openings, rooms, furniture, roof and facade settings. That is much clearer than the sibling vedutum_get_project. However, it does not explicitly contrast with vedutum_view_model, which an agent could easily confuse with this geometry feed.

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?

The only usage signal is the vague sentence "Used by the view itself." It implies this is an internal consumer, but never says when an agent should call it, when it should not, or which alternative to prefer (for example, vedutum_view_model). It gives no prerequisites or conditions for use.

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