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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description's burden is light. It still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: dimensions are in millimetres, height applies to the 'element cloud' and is optional, and compositions not built to room dimensions open without them (calculation: individual or not_by_room_size). That last caveat is genuinely non-obvious and worth the space.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second is a dense run-on mixing LC code behavior, room-dimension fallback, and internal jargon ('calculation: individual or not_by_room_size'). The internal term is unexplained and costs readability without clearly helping an agent decide or call correctly.

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 5 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers inputs adequately but never states what the tool returns (presumably a URL string). For a link-builder with no output schema, that return-value shape is the one missing piece an agent would want confirmed.

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 schema already documents length_mm, width_mm, height_mm, code, and lang with ranges and units. The description reinforces units and the optionality of height, but says nothing about the LC code format or the lang parameter, so it does not materially exceed the schema baseline.

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 opens with a concrete noun+verb framing: 'A link that opens the Vargov®Design 3D configurator with the zone dimensions already filled in.' That is a specific resource (a pre-filled configurator link) rather than a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_composition or search_compositions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools it competes with. The clause about LC codes describes a conditional behavior of the link rather than guidance on when an agent should call this tool versus get_composition or search_compositions.

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