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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it discloses non-obvious behavior: it surfaces warnings that edit_scene saves anyway, every finding has a severity and a fix with ready-to-send edit_scene ops, and results are ordered errors first with a pass/fail verdict. These are substantive behavioral facts not derivable from annotations or 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and scope, then routes to alternatives, then states return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information. Slightly long due to the breadth of checks listed, but none of it 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?

Given a read-only tool with no output schema and 2 params at 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, alternatives (finish, render_preview, edit_scene), strict-mode semantics, and return structure (findings, errors first, pass/fail). Nothing material is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description nonetheless ties `strict` to the finish tool's semantics and explains that unfinished parts become errors — reinforcing the schema's own description. It does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it's a helpful cross-reference. Baseline for 100% coverage is 3; the cross-tool contextualization earns a 4.

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 ('runs the full art-direction review') and resource (project/scene), and enumerates the exact checks performed: collisions, angles, floating vs resting devices, text overlap, cropping, contrast, composition, color. Clearly differentiated from siblings like render_preview and finish by naming them explicitly.

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?

Provides explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Use it while building to see every finding, including warnings edit_scene saves anyway; use finish once at the end for the final check, and render_preview to look at the result.' The `strict` parameter's role (final-check mode as in finish) is also explained. This is textbook alternative-routing.

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