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

Annotations already establish it as a safe, idempotent read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: no account is needed for the example house, and clients without a viewer get a short textual summary instead. It doesn't disclose rendering latency or limitations of the view, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences that front-load the capability and interactions, then the sourcing rule, then the fallback return behavior. No filler or repetition of the 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?

No output schema exists, and the description still covers the return value: a short summary for clients without the view. Together with annotations covering safety and schema covering both parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantic effect of project_id: omitting it selects VEDUTUM's example house, providing it selects a project of the connected account. The language parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: shows a building model in 3D in the conversation, with named interactions (turn, single storeys, cut-away). It also clarifies the two sourcing modes (example house vs. account project). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as vedutum_model_geometry or vedutum_get_project, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It states the conditional behavior: no project_id shows the example house with no account needed; with project_id it shows an account project. That implies when each mode applies, but there's no explicit 'use this instead of X' or prerequisite guidance relative to siblings such as vedutum_example_project or vedutum_model_geometry.

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