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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: output format and size cap, the no-upscaling behavior at strong zoom, the note that furniture is not a measurement reference, and the fact that preview_url is a stable address for exactly this image.

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 output format and size limit are front-loaded, followed by the two view modes and the return-address note. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical zoom remark is close to expendable.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers what comes back: an image, WebP, max dimension, a fixed preview_url, and the guarantee that nothing is persisted. Combined with the detailed view semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 carry the parameter meaning, and it does for 'view': flat is the default and shows the wall crop including mirroring, room shows the in-situ render with or without furniture. 'design_id' is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool purpose.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns an image of a wallpaper design, in WebP, capped at 1200 px. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_wallpaper_design (design data) or get_wallpaper_quote, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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 agent infers it should call this when it needs a visual preview, and the two view modes are explained in detail. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of get_wallpaper_design' routing or statement of when a preview is not appropriate.

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