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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful detail beyond annotations: the viewer supports rotation and opening in Drint, product selection for sets, and a Free-plan watermark. It does not mention return format or pagination, but those are less crucial for a viewer open action.

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 three tight sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful context: id source, product handling, and plan-specific watermark behavior.

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, the description explains what the user sees and how the project is opened. It covers the critical calling context — id source, product variant, and Free-plan watermark — though it does not describe return values or error 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, lang, and product. The description reinforces id sourcing and product indexing but adds little beyond what the schema already provides; lang is not mentioned in the description.

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: showing one of the signed-in person's Drint projects in 3D with its design. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as open_mockup or 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 clear prerequisite — take the id from list_my_projects — and explains product selection for sets. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like open_mockup, so alternatives and exclusions are left implicit.

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