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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but they do not specify side effects (e.g., cost, creation of a resource) which are likely for a generation tool. The description adds the model name (Recraft v4 Pro Vector) and default aspect ratio, which is extra context, but doesn't disclose typical behaviors like asynchronous generation or storage location. Given annotations are present, the bar is lower, but the description could add more on what happens after generation.

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 with critical information packed efficiently: purpose, model, sibling references, and default parameter. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given 3 parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description should elaborate on each parameter, but it only covers aspectRatio. Also, no output schema exists, yet the description doesn't mention what the tool returns (e.g., a creation ID or SVG URL). For a generation tool, this is incomplete; however, the tool name and context from siblings (like `creations_wait`) may imply asynchronous behavior, but that is not specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions `aspectRatio` default (1:1) and does not explain `prompt` or `folderReference` at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. With zero coverage, this is a gap, but the enums for aspectRatio provide some implicit guidance.

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 clearly states 'Text-to-SVG (Recraft v4 Pro Vector)' which specifies the verb (generate SVG) and resource (from text prompt), and distinguishes it from related siblings by naming `images_generate` for raster generation and `images_to_svg` for tracing existing rasters. This is specific and 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?

The description provides clear differentiation from sibling tools: it explicitly says to use `images_generate` for raster and `images_to_svg` for tracing existing raster. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative contexts beyond those two alternatives, but the exclusions are direct and helpful.

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