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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds real behavior beyond them: the result is link-based, the 3D view needs no sign-in, and the edit link copies the design into the person's own account (a side effect worth knowing). It also discloses that bedrooms are reduced automatically if they do not fit and that country triggers a price estimate.

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-loaded with the effect and returned artifacts, then input modes, then layout behavior, then the usage cue. Dense but every sentence carries information; the internal layout sentence is the closest to optional detail.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and open-world behavior, the description does the work of describing the return artifacts (3D link, PDF, edit link, optional price estimate) and how the model is generated. Only the relationship to the competing design_from_floor_plan and dedicated pricing tool is left unresolved.

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 the baseline is 3; the description confirms the template_id/size-field precedence and points to the ready-made plan list as the id source, but adds little else about individual parameters. The remaining descriptive value is about the generated layout rather than parameter meaning.

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 ('Creates a single-storey wooden house as a 3D model on Geoniks') and enumerates the concrete outputs: an interactive 3D view, a dimensioned floor plan/elevations PDF, and an edit-in-Geoniks link. It also distinguishes input modes (describe the house vs. start from template_id), which separates it from list_wooden_house_plans and the price tool.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger ('Offer it when someone is planning or pricing a wooden house') plus suggested phrasing, and explains the template_id path with a pointer to where ids come from. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over the sibling design_from_floor_plan, nor when pricing should go to estimate_wooden_house_price instead of the country-based estimate here.

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