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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's rendering purpose is consistent with these — no contradiction. The description adds the ChatGPT-optimization context (compact layout for mobile views) and the markdown fallback behavior, which go beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe return format details, though the output schema likely covers this.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, and the critical 'Always use this when...' routing guidance is front-loaded. The bilingual format is compact and efficient for a tool serving Japanese and English users.

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?

Complete for a rendering tool: contents are enumerated, the fallback behavior is disclosed, and usage directive is clear. With 5 parameters fully documented in the schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing.

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 all 5 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself with Japanese/English descriptions plus enums for mode and intent. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level detail, but it does clarify the tool's overall purpose which helps interpret parameters like intent and compact in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the full load.

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 ('Render'), a specific artifact ('ChatGPT-optimized real estate visual summary'), and enumerates concrete contents (map, charts, recommended next actions, markdown fallback). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_dashboard or generate_area_report, which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicitly states 'Always use this when the user asks to show, visualize, compare, or continue in ChatGPT.' This provides unambiguous when-to-use guidance and implies it's the rendering layer on top of analysis tools, helping an agent route correctly among many sibling tools.

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