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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: it returns an openable/orbitable URL, scenes are free and account-free, and paid rows are flagged with sourcing instructions. It does not cover persistence, expiry, or failure behavior, but the main behavioral traits are well surfaced.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and return value, then adds useful usage and licensing context. It is slightly verbose with persuasive framing, but no sentence is irrelevant.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return value as a URL and notes paid-item reporting. For a one-parameter preview tool, this is largely complete, though it could say more about URL persistence or invalid-id behavior.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage and is described as asset ids in any order, up to 24. The description does not add syntax or ordering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compose assets into a scene and return a URL the user can open and orbit. It also makes the output distinction explicit, separating it from handing over three.js code.

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 gives a clear usage rule: use this instead of giving the user an un-runnable three.js block. It does not name sibling-tool alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.

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