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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the viewer is interactive and supports rotate/zoom/recolour/resize, but it does not clarify whether recolour/resize changes persist or describe the return behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by id-source and optional-input details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 no output schema and only 50% parameter description coverage, the definition needs to carry more explanatory weight. It describes the viewer and optional colour/size inputs, but never mentions lang and leaves persistence/return behavior ambiguous.

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 50%: id, lang and colour have schema descriptions, while width_mm, height_mm and length_mm do not. The description adds millimetre units and groups the size fields, and restates the colour format, but it omits the lang parameter entirely.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: 'Show one Drint mockup in an interactive 3D viewer,' and lists the viewer interactions. It points to search_mockups for the id but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the close sibling send_to_3d_studio.

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 concrete prerequisite by saying 'Take the id from search_mockups,' which tells the agent where the required value comes from. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_to_3d_studio, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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