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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it only returns links, it incurs no cost, and the user must act on the website themselves. That is meaningful side-effect and prerequisite disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by limits and trigger. The middle clause listing the two link types is slightly wordy, but nothing is wasted and structure is clear.

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?

With one optional parameter, full schema documentation, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns (links) and when to call it. Naming the actual destination pages or link format would be the only marginal addition.

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?

There is a single optional 'locale' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, including a full enum list and a default. The description adds no additional meaning about locale handling, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get links to GridGarden's AI garden design') and even enumerates the two link targets (photo-based designer, in-Studio design). It does not name or contrast a sibling tool, so it falls short of the top band, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Explicit trigger is given: 'Use it when the user wants an AI-generated design or visualisation from a photo.' It also clarifies the negative case (never starts generation), though it never names an alternative sibling such as studio_create_design, leaving that routing to inference.

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