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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — 'does not submit personal data' — which reassures around privacy for an enquiry-routing call. It does not say where the URL leads or whether it expires, keeping it short of 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the privacy constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers what is produced (a URL), the supported scenarios, and the privacy boundary. It leaves out what Caspar is and the URL's lifespan, which are minor for a routing tool.

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 0%, so the schema supplies only bare enum tokens. The description compensates by mapping each to a human scenario, notably explaining 'wallcheck' as a print-file check, which an agent could not derive from the token alone. With only one self-describing enum parameter, this is sufficient.

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?

The description gives a concrete verb (return) and resource (a Caspar URL) and enumerates the three supported scenarios, which map onto the enum values. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling create_idempotent_project_handoff, which sounds functionally adjacent.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the three listed scenarios (project enquiry, sample request, print-file check) correspond to the enum values, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, no condition selects this tool over create_idempotent_project_handoff, and no exclusions are given.

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