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

Well beyond the annotations, the description discloses link lifetime (24-25 hours, then it falls back to opening the design in the studio), the failure mode where a stale quote yields QUOTE_CHANGED with the new price instead of a link, and that an own-image design gives the opening browser its own copy. These are exactly the runtime traits an agent cannot infer from the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 and dense: the core action comes first, followed by constraints, expiry, and the error case, with no filler sentences. It is occasionally terse to the point of compression, especially the final sentence about own-image copies.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what the caller gets back (a link or QUOTE_CHANGED with the new price), the time limit, and the country limit. It stops short of describing the response shape or which field carries the URL, which would matter for a tool with no output schema.

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 carries the whole burden. It fully explains quote_sha256 (the price the customer saw, with QUOTE_CHANGED on mismatch), but says nothing about design_id beyond context and only constrains country indirectly via "Alleen voor Nederland" without explaining the parameter or its two-letter pattern.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and outcome: produce a link that places this design at this price into createdby.you's shopping cart. It immediately delimits scope (no ordering or payment through this link), which separates it from get_wallpaper_quote and get_wallpaper_handoff without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description gives a country restriction ("Alleen voor Nederland") and a negative boundary (no ordering or payment), but never says when to choose this over get_wallpaper_handoff or get_wallpaper_quote. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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