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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: Geoniks builds walls, doors, windows, floor and roof, automatically adds missing openings, and returns a 3D view link plus a PDF and edit link. It does not cover persistence, link expiry, or authentication needs, which keeps it from a 5.

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 long but front-loaded and well structured: purpose and outputs come first, followed by a bulleted input-format section. Every sentence earns its place by specifying geometry conventions, opening rules, or limitations needed to build a valid model.

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?

For a complex geometry-to-3D tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the input format, automatic additions, single-storey limitation, manual fallback, and return artifacts. It could say more about error handling or how long returned links remain valid, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 67%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: units in metres, origin at the top-left with x right and y down, rooms as rectangles with shared exact edges for touching rooms, splitting L-shaped rooms, and opening conventions including side and position. These rules are essential for correct invocation and are not fully captured by the structured parameter descriptions.

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: it builds a 3D wooden house from the rooms of a person's own floor plan, including photo, sketch, PDF page, or drawing. By specifying that the source is the user's own floor plan, it clearly differentiates the tool from a generic house-design sibling.

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 explicit usage boundaries: single storey only, and unclear drawings should be handled by the Geoniks manual service at a named URL. It does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools such as design_wooden_house, so it falls just short of full when-to-use guidance.

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